|
|
 |
|
|
Witness (798,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Witness
Total judgments found: 30
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5156
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her dismissal for misconduct.
Consideration 12
Extract:
“The Tribunal notes that its case law […] concerning an investigator’s duty to gather exculpatory evidence, including interviewing witnesses listed by the accused person, was primarily established in cases where the disciplinary charges were solely based on witness statements and the accused person questioned the credibility of the witnesses (see, specifically, Judgment 5003, consideration 5). […] [In the present case] the charges of misconduct are supported not only by witness statements, but also by decisive and conclusive documentary evidence, consisting of emails sent by the complainant to other staff members and external third parties. Therefore, the hearing of the witnesses listed by the complainant could not have disproven the finding of misconduct already evident from the complainant’s emails.”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 5003
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence during investigation; investigation; right to be heard; witness;
Consideration 20
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law has it that an allegation of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality has to be substantiated and based on specific facts, not on mere suspicions or hypotheses. The complainant bears the burden of proving conflict of interest (see Judgments 4963, consideration 15, 4915, consideration 5, 4711, consideration 5, 4617, consideration 9, and 4616, consideration 6). The complainant has not discharged her burden of proof. The mere fact that an officer made an unfavourable decision concerning a staff member, or took part in the process leading to such a decision, does not, by itself, imply that such officer would be biased in future decisions concerning the same staff member or, as in this case, in providing testimony [to IOS].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4616, 4617, 4711, 4915, 4963
Keywords:
burden of proof; conflict of interest; investigation; witness;
Consideration 9
Extract:
“There are no rules that oblige an investigator to provide the subject of an investigation with witness statements during the course of the investigation itself. It is sufficient that the staff concerned be informed of the allegations during their interview and that they are provided with the content of the witness statements, together with the investigation report, at the conclusion of the investigation.”
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; investigation report; witness;
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law holds that staff members must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence upon which the competent authority bases its decision concerning them (see Judgments 4659, consideration 4, 3295, consideration 13, 3214, consideration 24, and 2229, consideration 3(b)). This implies, among other things, that an organisation must provide staff members with the investigation report on which the disciplinary measure against them is based (see Judgments 4659, consideration 4). However, this must be balanced against the need to respect the confidential nature of certain aspects of an investigation, particularly that of the witness statements gathered in the course of the investigation. As the Tribunal’s case law has confirmed, such confidentiality may be necessary in order to ensure witnesses’ protection and freedom of expression (see Judgment 3640, considerations 19 and 20). This case law implies that redaction is permissible when necessary to maintain the confidentiality of certain aspects of the investigation, especially to protect the interests of third parties (see Judgments 4815, consideration 14, and 4659, consideration 4).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 3214, 3295, 3640, 4659, 4815
Keywords:
confidential evidence; disclosure of evidence; due process; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 5151
141st Session, 2026
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to close his harassment complaint.
Consideration 7
Extract:
“[The complainant asserts that he should have been provided with the transcripts of witness statements] […] [T]he complainant was provided with a copy of the IOS report […] upon receiving the decision on his harassment [complaint]. The [internal appeal body] correctly considered that the complainant had been provided with the material relied upon by the Organization in relation to the impugned decision and received all the relevant information. Indeed, the IOS report sufficiently summarizes the testimonial […] evidence in support of its findings.”
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; harassment; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Consideration 19
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law recognizes that an accusation of harassment requires an international organization to investigate the matter in a manner designed to ascertain all relevant facts without compromising the good name of the employee and that the employee be given an opportunity to test the evidence put against him or her and to answer the charge made […]. This necessitates, amongst others, that the person accused be kept informed of the content of statements and testimonies gathered as part of the relevant investigation to challenge them if necessary. The Tribunal’s case law accepts, however, that there may be situations in which an organization can, in some circumstances, refuse to provide the subject of disciplinary proceedings with the transcripts of witness interviews without committing a breach of due process […]. The objective is to ensure that the person accused is sufficiently informed of the evidence on which the administration intends to base its decision and that he has an effective opportunity to test that evidence and to defend himself against the allegations of misconduct.”
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; harassment; investigation; witness;
Judgment 5105
141st Session, 2026
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his suspension from duty pending investigation into alleged misconduct in connection with outside activities, and his subsequent discharge for misconduct in connection with the publication of a defamatory blog.
Consideration 2
Extract:
The complainant applies for oral proceedings and lists four witnesses. The Tribunal observes that the parties have presented ample written submissions and documents, which have permitted the Tribunal to reach an informed and just decision on the case. Thus, the request for oral proceedings is rejected.
Keywords:
oral proceedings; witness;
Judgment 5097
141st Session, 2026
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of a letter of warning.
Consideration 18
Extract:
“[C]ross-examination of witnesses is not considered by the Tribunal’s case law to be a mandatory requirement for the lawfulness of the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings […].”
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; investigation; witness;
Judgment 5008
140th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to discharge him on disciplinary grounds.
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s precedents have it that staff members must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against them, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. However, where disciplinary proceedings are brought against officials who have been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused officials, but they must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which they need to defend themselves fully in these proceedings. In order to respect the right of defence, it is sufficient for the officials to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against them and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that they may effectively challenge the probative value thereof […]. In light of the Tribunal’s case law, due process does not necessarily require that the accused staff be provided with the verbatim transcripts of the interviews of the witnesses […]. In conclusion, it was sufficient that the complainant was provided with an accurate written record of the interviews, and this was done.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; investigation; sexual harassment; witness;
Judgment 4994
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who was called to give evidence as part of an investigation into allegations of harassment, challenges the refusal to allow him to be accompanied by a colleague at his interview.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
assistance during investigation; complaint allowed; harassment; witness;
Judgment 4916
139th Session, 2025
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests her Performance Appraisal Report for the period from 1 November 2019 to 31 October 2020 and the decision not to renew her appointment due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of trust.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant correctly points out that there was a violation of the confidentiality of her testimony before the Advisory Board. The rationale behind this confidentiality, as foreseen by Rule 25.2, paragraphs (f) and (g), of the Staff Manual, is not only to protect witnesses’ personal data, but also to ensure that their testimonies remain confidential and that they are neither used against them nor have a negative impact on them, so that witnesses can speak freely without fear of reprisal or retaliation. The Secretary-General improperly used the complainant’s confidential testimony in Advisory Board proceedings concerning an entirely different matter as a basis to assess her performance. This was an error of law. Even if Rule 25.2, paragraphs (f) and (g), of the Staff Manual did not directly apply to the Secretary-General, the latter was bound by the general principle of confidentiality underlying this rule.
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; confidentiality; mistake of law; testimony; witness;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
breach of confidentiality; complaint allowed; mistake of law; non-renewal of contract; performance; performance evaluation; performance report; testimony; witness;
Judgment 4856
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 14
Extract:
In its well-reasoned opinion, the Committee correctly concluded (and the Director-General confirmed in the impugned decision) that due process was observed during the OIGI’s investigation, noting that the complainant had been interviewed and given the opportunity to test the evidence. This is apparent from the information contained in consideration 1 of this judgment. The Committee also concluded, correctly in the Tribunal’s view, and as the Director-General accepted in the impugned decision, the fact that OIGI did not interview persons whom the complainant mentioned during his interview, notably, the two brothers or the CEO of the Political Party, did not violate due process because the complainant had not shown that not interviewing them caused him prejudice.
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; investigation; prejudice; witness;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Considerations 18-21
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the investigation and disciplinary procedure at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4836
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges his non-selection for several positions.
Considerations 13-17
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious from the content of the Appeals Commission report that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature and that it was relating specifically to the selection procedures at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Considerations 4-6
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] It is obvious […] that the Commission interviewed these Federation staff on various issues which touched and concerned “the circumstances in which the offer was rescinded”. This tends to demonstrate that the information sought by the Commission was not of a general nature, and that it was relating specifically to the rescission of the offer of employment at issue. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4834
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the non-extension of his fixed-term appointment.
Considerations 12-15
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits, in substance, that the Appeals Commission prevented him from attending the hearing of the witnesses it called to permit him to test the evidence, and, in any event, that he was not even provided with the statements of such witnesses […] The Federation relies on Judgment 4408, where the Tribunal concluded, in consideration 4, that an interview conducted as an “investigative measure” to enable an appeal body to obtain general information not relating specifically to the situation of the complainant was not a hearing where the complainant was required to be present or where the content of the discussion had to be disclosed to him or her […] While the Appeals Commission’s report is almost silent about the content of those interviews, its statement that “[…]” tends to demonstrate that the interviews were not about the Federation’s budgetary framework but about the specific situation of the complainant and the decision not to extend his contract. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the complainant had a right, at least to have been apprised of the content of the interviews and to provide his comments if he so wished. Since this was not done, the complainant’s right to be heard was violated […] For this, which is an infringement of due process, he will be awarded 15,000 Swiss francs.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4408
Keywords:
due process; internal appeal; internal appeals body; internal procedure; moral damages; oral proceedings; right to be heard; witness;
Judgment 4770
137th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.
Consideration 6
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the cross-examination of witnesses is not a requirement for the lawfulness of the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings, provided that due process be ensured by other means. In the present case, the Tribunal is satisfied that due process was respected, despite the fact that the complainant had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Indeed, he was informed of the precise allegations made against him and was provided with the verbatim records of the statements of the witnesses. He was thus able to confront and test the evidence, even though he was not present when the statements were made and was not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them. Moreover, the investigation relied not only on the statements rendered by three witnesses, but also on documentary evidence.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; due process; investigation; witness;
Judgment 4679
136th Session, 2023
ITER International Fusion Energy Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her complaint of harassment, discrimination and abuse of authority.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The applicable staff rules did not provide for cross-examination of the accused person and/or of the witnesses, nor do they require verbatim records of the interviews, which is not contrary to the case law (see Judgments 4579, consideration 3, and 2771, consideration 18). Therefore, the allegations that there were no verbatim records of the interviews and that the complainant was not allowed to cross-examine the accused persons and the witnesses fail. The case law requires that the person who lodged a harassment complaint be informed of the content of the interviews and be allowed to comment on them (see Judgments 4111, consideration 4, 4110, consideration 4, 4109, consideration 4, 4108, consideration 4, and 3875, consideration 3).
[…]
[T]he complainant was provided with the investigation report, together with the minutes of the testimonies attached to it. Even though she received the investigation report only after she had lodged her internal appeal, she was given ten further working days […] to supplement her appeal. She was asked to confirm […] whether she wished to avail herself of this option, and she did not. Therefore, she was allowed to further comment on the investigation report, and she chose not to. Considering that she was able to rely on the investigation report during the appeal proceedings, the Tribunal is satisfied that her right to due process was not breached (see Judgment 4406, consideration 8).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 3875, 4108, 4109, 4110, 4111, 4406, 4579
Keywords:
duty to inform; duty to inform about the investigation; harassment; investigation report; witness;
Judgment 4615
135th Session, 2023
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.
Considerations 20 and 23
Extract:
The case law relied upon by the organisation (see Judgment 2771, consideration 18, cited below), correctly interpreted, does not allow exceptions to the necessity of a written record being made available to the concerned official, but only approves of a written record as an alternative to cross-examination or to a verbatim record. Indeed, the Tribunal held in that judgment:
“The complainant points to cases in which the Tribunal observed that the complainant had not been present when statements were taken and not given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses [...], to object to evidence [...] or to have a verbatim record of the evidence [...] These are matters that, in the cases concerned, would have ensured that the requirements of due process were satisfied. However, they are not the only means by which due process can be ensured. In the present case, the complainant was informed of the precise allegations made against him [...], and provided with the summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the Investigation Panel, even if not verbatim records. He was able to and did point out [...] inconsistencies in the evidence, its apparent weaknesses and other matters that bore upon its relevance and probative value, before the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made [...] In this way, the complainant was able to confront and test the evidence against him, even though he was not present when statements were made and not able to cross-examine the witnesses who made them.”
In the precedent quoted above, the complainant was informed of the content of the witnesses’ testimonies by written records before the decision; in the present case, the complainant acknowledged the content of the witnesses’ testimonies by means of the Advisory Board’s report, not during the proceedings but only when that report was provided to her attached to the termination decision, that is to say at a stage when she could no longer usefully comment on them.
It can be inferred from the quoted case law that two principles must be respected in an adversarial procedure: (i) not only must the oral evidence gathered be recorded in writing, even though not necessarily by a verbatim record; (ii) but also any evidence gathered must be submitted to the person concerned, for her or his comment, before the decision is adopted.
In the present case, the organisation failed to comply with both principles, as there was no written record of Mr B.’s statement and this statement was not disclosed to the complainant before she was notified of the decision endorsing the Advisory Board’s report.
[…]
In light of consideration 20 […], the Advisory Board’s recommendation is flawed with regard to the assessment of offensive act no. 1 for lack of written record. However, this flaw is not decisive in order to declare that the Advisory Board’s recommendation was unlawful in its entirety. As noted in considerations 21 and 22 [...], the Advisory Board’s finding that the complainant’s conduct amounted to harassment was based on multiple episodes and related evidence sufficient for the purpose of the adoption of measures aimed at the protection of the victim of harassment. Therefore, the Board’s report deserves considerable deference (see Judgments 4488, consideration 7, and 4180, consideration 7).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771, 4180, 4488
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; evidence; report of the internal appeals body; witness;
Consideration 22
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal observes that the right of defence of the complainant was not affected by the fact that the officials heard as witnesses were not named. It was sufficient for the complainant to know the content of the statements and it was not necessary for her to know the witnesses’ names. Furthermore, the Advisory Board redacted some names for reasons of confidentiality, since some officials feared retaliation by the complainant: this was a reasonable step to strike a balance between the right of defence of the accused person and the right of the witnesses to be protected against retaliation.
Keywords:
disclosure of evidence; due process in disciplinary procedure; witness;
Judgment 4579
135th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[A]ccording to the Tribunal’s case law, the verbatim record of the oral evidence gathered during disciplinary proceedings is not deemed strictly necessary. It is sufficient that the person charged in disciplinary proceedings be informed of the precise allegations made against her or him, provided with the summaries of the witnesses’ testimonies relied upon by the body in charge of the investigation, and enabled to comment on them (see Judgment 2771, consideration 18).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2771
Keywords:
due process; evidence; investigation; witness;
Judgment 4549
134th Session, 2022
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the Director-General’s decision to reject her harassment complaint.
Consideration 9
Extract:
The failure, without valid grounds and notwithstanding the discretion conferred by paragraph 9 of Article 13.4 of the Staff Regulations, to hear witnesses potentially supportive of the complainant’s allegations constituted a breach of due process (see Judgment 4111, consideration 3). The complainant’s allegation is therefore well founded. As this error of law vitiates the validity of the investigation report, which forms the basis of the impugned decision, that decision must be set aside, without there being any need to address the complainant’s other pleas (see Judgments 4313, consideration 7, and 4110, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4110, 4111, 4313
Keywords:
due process; harassment; investigation; investigation report; testimony; witness;
Judgment 4453
133rd Session, 2022
World Tourism Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to summarily dismiss him.
Consideration 6
Extract:
These remarks do not come to grips with what Mr R. said nor provide a sound basis for rejecting his evidence. To say someone is “evidently personally offended by what he considers to be an attack to his mandate” is firstly equivocal and secondly and more importantly does not provide, of itself, a firm foundation for saying that Mr R.’s account of past events cannot, or even should not, be accepted as true. It is not at all obvious that if a person is personally offended in the circumstances just discussed, that would “[prevent] [her or] him from being a reliable and objective witness” let alone someone who is giving a false account of past events.
Keywords:
evidence; witness;
Judgment 4343
131st Session, 2021
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to demote him by two grades as a disciplinary measure for harassment.
Considerations 13-14
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law accepts that there may be situations in which an organization can refuse to provide the subject of disciplinary proceedings with the transcripts of witness interviews without committing a breach of due process. An example is provided by Judgment 3640, where the issue of the need to reconcile the requirements of due process with the confidentiality of harassment investigations was dealt with in considerations 17 to 22. In that judgment, the Tribunal recalled its case law according to which “a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” and, “under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers)”. In consideration 20, the Tribunal observed that, “as is expressly indicated by the use of the terms ‘as a general rule’ and ‘under normal circumstances’ [...], the case law in question does allow some exceptions to the principle which it establishes”. The Tribunal held that:
“[W]here disciplinary proceedings are brought against an official who has been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused official, but she or he must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which she or he needs to defend herself or himself fully in these proceedings. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state, in order to respect the rights of defence, it is sufficient for the official to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against her or him and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that she or he may effectively challenge the probative value thereof (see Judgment 2771, under 18).”
It is therefore necessary to consider whether the evidence in the present case shows that the complainant was sufficiently informed of the content of the witness statements, even though they were not shared with him, as there would have been “a serious breach of due process” if he had not been so informed (see Judgment 3137, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2771, 3137, 3295, 3640
Keywords:
confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; due process; harassment; witness;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
