Evidence during investigation (903,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Evidence during investigation
Total judgments found: 6

• 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;