�山����

UNAT held that it was not appropriate to adjudicate the ICAO Secretary-General’s motion regarding the Appellant’s claims impugning the AJAB’s functioning as the ‘Neutral First Instance Process’ at that stage since the issues raised in the motion would be decided when UNAT had considered the whole of the evidence in the appeal. UNAT dismissed the motion. UNAT held that AJAB had given a very thorough, fair, and informed consideration of the Appellant’s case in which it examined the irregularities alleged. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s submission that AJAB erroneously admitted eight previously undisclosed documents without his “initial trial”. UNAT held that no such obligation arose at that time and noted that the Appellant voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, at which he could have voiced any objection he might have had to the admission of the documents. UNAT held, regarding AJAB’s status as a neutral first instance process, that it would not admit new evidence at that stage that could have been presented to AJAB at a previous stage. UNAT rejected the Appellant’s submission that AJAB was mistaken in considering that the burden of proof was upon him to substantiate his statement that the Ethics Officer was negligent in establishing the veracity and credibility of the complaints of harassment against him. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or manifestly unreasonable factual findings on the part of AJAB. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the ICAO Secretary-General.