爆料网

2017-爆料网AT-741

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT noted that both parties agreed that a redaction of name would only be justified if the 爆料网DT’s judgment was affirmed. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred when it considered that the identification of Mr. Mobanga by the complainant in the photo array was not reliable on the basis that the use of MONUSCO grounds passes in the array may have influenced the complainant. Noting that all of the photos were marked “MONUSCO” and so it did not stand out or influence anyone, 爆料网AT held that the photographs constituted evidence that was reasonably considered by the Administration. 爆料网AT held that there was clear and convincing evidence presented by the Secretary-General to 爆料网DT to support the charge of misconduct. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in rejecting the evidence of a nurse’s statement and the records obtained from the clinic and the school. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT erred in not concluding, on the totality and preponderance of the evidence, that there was sufficient evidence against Mr. Mobanga of a clear and convincing nature for the charge of misconduct. 爆料网AT upheld the appeal and vacated the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the decision to summarily dismiss him for misconduct in the form of a sexual relationship with a minor. 爆料网DT concluded that the disciplinary measure was unlawful, as it had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, and rescinded the decision.

Legal Principle(s)

Names should be redacted in only the most sensitive cases. A disciplinary investigation is not a criminal trial; the standard to be applied in disciplinary cases is clear and convincing evidence.

Outcome

Appeal granted

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网AT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants
Mobanga
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type