Ãå±±½ûµØ

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the facts upon which the sanction was based had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, albeit for different reasons than given by UNDT. UNAT held that UNDT’s determination that the evidence from two witnesses had little probative value was correct because although written witness statements taken under oath can be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence the facts to support the dismissal of a staff member when a statement is not made under oath or affirmation, there must be some other indicia of reliability or truthfulness for the statement to have probative value. UNAT held that since there was no transcript of the evidence taken before the Joint Disciplinary Committee (JDC), UNAT could not determine whether the testimony was reliable or truthful. UNAT held that, without the transcript, it only had the JDC report which summarised the witnesses’ testimony and such summarisation was merely hearsay, which may properly be found to have little probative value when it does not corroborate competent evidence. UNAT held that it was the responsibility of the Administration to assure that a transcript of the proceedings before the JDC can be provided to UNAT if requested and noted that the Administration was unable to do this. UNAT held that the balance of probabilities standard used by the JDC was considerably less than the clear and convincing evidence standard required for the dismissal of a staff member. UNAT held that UNDT correctly concluded that the Administration did not establish the facts upon which the dismissal was based by clear and convincing evidence. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.