Evidence during investigation (903,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Evidence during investigation
Total judgments found: 8

• 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 4

  Extract:

  “[B]efore adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organisation must give the staff concerned the opportunity to defend themselves in adversarial proceedings (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, and 3875, consideration 3). The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgments 4832, consideration 28, 4343, consideration 13, and 2496, consideration 7). Before disciplinary proceedings are undertaken, the investigator has the duty to ascertain all relevant facts and the accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, 4697, consideration 12, 4491, consideration 19, and 4011, consideration 9). This implies that the investigator has to assess not only evidence against the accused person, but also exculpatory evidence (see Judgments 5003, consideration 5, 4456, considerations 9 and 17, and 4362, consideration 12), and, before this, must allow the accused person to provide exculpatory evidence (see Judgment 5003, consideration 5).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496, 3875, 4011, 4343, 4491, 4697, 4832, 5003
  

  Keywords:

  disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence during investigation; investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 5003

  
  139th Session, 2025
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him with notice.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  Firm and constant precedents of the Tribunal have it that, before adopting a disciplinary measure, an international organisation must give the staff member concerned the opportunity to defend herself or himself in adversarial proceedings (see, for example, Judgment 3875, consideration 3). Due process requires that a staff member accused of misconduct be given an opportunity to test the evidence relied upon and, if she or he so wishes, to produce evidence to the contrary. The right to make a defence is necessarily a right to defend oneself before an adverse decision is made, whether by a disciplinary body or the deciding authority (see Judgments 4832, consideration 28, 4343, consideration 13, and 2496, consideration 7). Before disciplinary proceedings are undertaken, the investigator has the duty to ascertain all relevant facts and the accused person must be given the benefit of the doubt (see, for example, Judgments 4697, consideration 12, 4491, consideration 19, and 4011, consideration 9). This implies that the investigator has to assess not only evidence against the accused person, but also exculpatory evidence (see Judgments 4456, considerations 9 and 17, and 4362, consideration 12), and, before this, must allow the accused person to provide exculpatory evidence. In the present case, the complainant’s request to hear witnesses was not even dismissed with a reason, it was ignored completely. […]
  It is true that, pursuant to WHO e-Manual, section III.12.4.530, the hearing of witnesses is at the discretion of the GBA, but the GBA must give reasons for its refusal to grant the hearing of witnesses, whilst in the present case the complainant’s request was merely ignored with no grounds at all.
  The failure, during the entire process of investigating and evaluating the position of the complainant, to consider hearing the witnesses listed by the complainant is, in the Tribunal’s view, a serious flaw in the process, as some of the charges against the complainant are based only on the report and on the interview of the alleged victim, and one of the charges (namely the one referring to unwelcome hugging) is based on the interview of Mr W. In conclusion, the pleas are well founded to the extent that the complainant’s request to hear witnesses was not considered. It cannot be established, at this stage, what would have been the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings if the witnesses listed by the complainant had been interviewed, namely, it cannot be established whether the findings would have warranted, in any event, the most severe sanction or a less severe sanction. Moreover, the Tribunal, in cases where it found that some of the charges were not proven “beyond reasonable doubt” due to the failure to consider exculpatory evidence, annulled the disciplinary decision in its entirety (see Judgments 4456, considerations 9, 16 and 17, 4453, consideration 15, and 4362, considerations 17 and 18).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2496, 3875, 4343, 4362, 4453, 4456, 4697, 4832
  

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; evidence during investigation; investigation; right to be heard;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4754

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to close his harassment complaint.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  It should be observed [...] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
  “Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674
  

  Keywords:

  deference; evidence during investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4753

  
  137th Session, 2024
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to place on his personnel file a letter notifying him that he had committed serious misconduct for which he would have been summarily dismissed had he not separated from the IAEA, and to relevantly inform all affected individuals.

  Consideration 10

  Extract:

  It should be observed […] that the Tribunal generally defers to the findings by internal investigative bodies. For example, in Judgment 4237, consideration 12 (recently cited in Judgment 4674, consideration 5), the Tribunal said:
  “Moreover, where there is an investigation by an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings, ‘it is not the Tribunal’s role to reweigh the evidence collected by an investigative body the members of which, having directly met and heard the persons concerned or implicated, were able immediately to assess the reliability of their testimony. For that reason, reserve must be exercised before calling into question the findings of such a body and reviewing its assessment of the evidence. The Tribunal will interfere only in the case of manifest error (see Judgments 3682, under 8, and 3593, under 12)’ (see Judgment 3757, under 6).”

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3593, 3682, 3757, 4237, 4674
  

  Keywords:

  deference; evidence during investigation; investigative body; role of the tribunal;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3875

  
  124th Session, 2017
  European Organization for Nuclear Research
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to dismiss him on disciplinary grounds.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  An investigation aimed at identifying the perpetrator of an undisputed incident of computer hacking has no chance of success unless rigorous protective measures are taken immediately, as a first step, in order to put an end to the damage caused by this unlawful action. The evidence in the file shows, firstly, that the conduct of the investigators towards an employee whom they could objectively regard as the prime suspect did not go beyond what was necessary in the circumstances. Had they not seized all the data in his possession, and had he not been removed temporarily from his workplace, it would have been easy for him, if he was the guilty party, to erase any data which might have proved that he was implicated in the hacking which formed the subject of the investigation.

  Keywords:

  evidence during investigation; hacking; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3200

  
  115th Session, 2013
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to impose on her the disciplinary measure of demotion.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  As for the argument that the investigation was biased, it must be pointed out that the investigators have some discretion in
  questioning witnesses, and there is no rule requiring standardised questions.

  Keywords:

  evidence during investigation; witness;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 2771

  
  106th Session, 2009
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  "In support of his argument that he was denied due process by the [Investigation] Panel the complainant relies on Judgment 2254 where it was said that, "before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him". That statement relates to the situation where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. However, and as its name suggests, the function of the Panel was to investigate. Contrary to the arguments of the complainant, the requirement that it "assess the reliability of the source or sources of information and the evidence submitted" does not render it a judicial body. The assessment of the reliability of evidence is a function that is properly described as "judicial" only when reposed in a judicial body."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254
  

  Keywords:

  appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 1977

  
  89th Session, 2000
  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "[The complainant] argues that because the Tribunal found in Judgment 1763 that the Director of the Division of Personnel should not have both collected evidence at the investigation stage and sat as chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board at the deliberative stage, the consequence must be that any evidence collected in that flawed process must be forever tainted [...] The complainant is wrong. Judgment 1763 did not find that the investigation process was itself flawed but made it clear that the manner in which it had been carried out in part by a person who was also Chairman of the Joint Disciplinary Board vitiated the latter's deliberative functions. The evidence itself remained both admissible and relevant and as long as both the [Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Support] and the ad hoc panel offered the complainant full opportunity to comment on and respond to it, which they did, the complainant has no legitimate grounds for objecting thereto."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1763
  

  Keywords:

  admissibility of evidence; appraisal of evidence; conflict of interest; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; procedural rights during investigation; right to be heard;