±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no difficulty in principle regarding the admissibility of the secretly recorded conversation based on the way it was procured, even though it may have involved an element of entrapment; however, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was concerned that the probative value of the evidence depended upon the credibility of a person who did not testify before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that the content of the contemporaneous emails which supported the transcript of the telephone conversation remained hearsay unless it was confirmed by the authors or recipients of the emails and that none of the authors or...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that Mr. Khamis¡¯ proven conduct did not itself amount to misconduct: he did not engage in transactional sexual relations with local persons and his sexual relations with two local women were more in the nature of domestic, albeit polygamous and ¡®open¡¯, relationships. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it was not established that payments made to both women were commercial transactions in return for sexual favours. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was not such an imbalance of power between Mr. Khamis and the two women that they could be termed...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in fact and in law in its finding that the facts of misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that a number of the factual findings made by ±¬ÁÏÍøDT were not supported by the evidence and were unreasonable. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT should have limited itself to determining whether the Secretary-General was within his authority to impose disciplinary measures on Mr. Hossain, and that by speculating on the misconduct of another individual, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its competence. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the evidence was clear and convincing that the Appellant was under the influence of alcohol when he got into his car before the accident occurred and that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in concluding otherwise. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that his conduct was in violation of Staff Regulation 1.2(f) and the MINUSMA Code of Conduct. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that: there was no evidence on record that the Appellant was authorised to carry his firearm while off-duty; that, on the contrary, the evidence on record showed that normally security guards did not carry their weapons off-duty; and ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the charge of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant¡¯s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s role to review...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Kennedy. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the sanction letter and record provided inadequate reasons for judicial review leading to the finding that no rational connection or relationship between the evidence and the objective of the disciplinary action has been established. As a result, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT was unable to assess the proportionality and lawfulness of the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by the Commissioner-General and a cross-appeal by Ms. Kaddoura. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT Judgment in part. It only vacated the referral of the former Commissioner-General for accountability, finding that it was not adequate to rely on hearsay to refer a former staff member, be it the former Commissioner-General or any other, to accountability. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that there was no possibility of imposing a disciplinary measure on a former staff member, and as such any such referral would be ineffectual.

±¬ÁÏÍøAT granted the appeal by the Secretary-General and vacated the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment.

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara¡¯s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s findings into doubt. Accordingly, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the sanction of...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any errors in the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s finding that her application was filed one day late and was out of time. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that it is the receipt of the management evaluation response which triggers the time limit for filing an application to the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT, and not the moment when the staff member or her legal representative could reasonably be assumed to have taken notice of the response. In concurrence with the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Judgment, ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the Appellant had not presented any exceptional circumstances to justify waiving the time limits and that any such...