爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements
The 爆料网AT held that entering the former staff member's name into the ClearCheck database was because of the Administration’s final determination that he sexually abused and sexually harassed the Complainant, and as the entry precludes him from any future employment in the United Nations common system, it was effectively a disciplinary measure and should be reviewed as such.
The 爆料网AT found that the Secretary-General’s appeal regarding the engagement of a psychology expert in 爆料网DT Order No. 053 was receivable. The 爆料网AT found that the 爆料网DT, by engaging an expert to “analyze the facts” and “ask questions” and to determine “false memories” or who has “intentionally lied”, improperly delegated its core judicial function of assessing the credibility of witnesses, which was a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it as contemplated by Article 2(b) of the 爆料网DT Statute. The 爆料网AT rescinded that part of 爆料网DT Order No. 053.
The 爆料网AT held that the Dispute Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in 爆料网DT Order No. 031 in seeking to conduct a de novo investigation into the 2007 incident at a U.S. university involving the Complainant, by seeking information from the FBI and the U.S. university.The 爆料网AT ordered the 爆料网DT to rescind any actions taken in furtherance of investigating the 2007 incident on its own volition and to refrain from considering any evidence or information it may have received as a result of the unlawful 爆料网DT investigation.
The 爆料网AT held that it was manifestly unreasonable and in excess of its jurisdiction, for the 爆料网DT to direct the Secretary-General to compel the Complainant, who is not a party to the proceedings before the 爆料网DT or a staff member of the Organization, and who is not under the Administration or the 爆料网DT’s authority, to release her personal records from a university she once attended. The 爆料网AT rescinded that part of Order No. 071.
The 爆料网AT granted the appeals and modified the impugned Orders.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees challenged the determination by the High Commissioner that he had sexually assaulted another former staff member of 爆料网HCR and that his name would be entered into the United Nations ClearCheck database.
The Secretary-General filed interlocutory appeals of 爆料网DT Order No. 031 (2026) in which the 爆料网DT indicated that it would seek information from a U.S. university and the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about an incident involving the Complainant; 爆料网DT Order No. 053 (2026) in which the 爆料网DT stated its intent to hire a forensic psychiatry or psychology expert to assist in the assessment of the case; and 爆料网DT Order No. 071 (2026) in which the 爆料网DT instructed the Secretary-General to obtain the Complainant’s consent to release certain university records
Legal Principle(s)
Appeals against most interlocutory decisions will not be receivable, for instance, decisions on matters of evidence, procedure, and trial conduct. An interlocutory appeal is only receivable in cases where the 爆料网DT has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.
If an error by the 爆料网DT is effectively irremediable by final 爆料网DT judgment (or on appeal therefrom) and it would be manifestly unreasonable for the 爆料网DT’s order or other decision to remain in effect, such a decision will be appealable.
The 爆料网DT may admit and hear evidence presented by the parties but cannot conduct its own investigation of the facts on which the disciplinary sanction has been based.
There is no authority given to the 爆料网DT in its Statute or its Rules to retain its own expert for the purpose of asking questions on its behalf or making determinations on the credibility of witnesses before it.