�山����

Ms. Reilly filed an application for correction. UNAT found that her application was in substance both an application for correction and revision.  UNAT dismissed the application. UNAT held that the corrections sought were of no material relevance to the outcome and reasoning of the judgment. With respect to one correction sought, UNAT noted that the Secretary-General conceded that he had furnished the Appeals Tribunal with incorrect information - Ms. Reilly was on special leave with pay for four rather than six days in October 2019. UNAT, however, found that that was not a decisive fact, as it had no impact on the outcome of the case or the reasoning in it, and as such it did not warrant a correction or revision of judgment. UNAT also dismissed Ms. Reilly's request to include three additional paragraphs which she believed would give a fuller reflection of her submissions on grounds that Article 11 of the UNAT Statute does not contemplate the correction or revision of a judgment to include more elaborate legal arguments.