Ãå±±½ûµØ

A re-trial would be unduly wasteful of time and resources. The Respondent was adequately represented especially as no oral evidence was tendered by the Applicant and the issue of cross- examining a witness did not arise. Full equality was accorded the parties in the circumstances. The onus lies on the Respondent to show that the provisions of ST/AI/2006/3 had been complied with in this case in order to prove that the Applicant was fully, fairly and properly considered. This onus has not been discharged.The Applicant’s candidature was not considered at the 15-day mark as required by the relevant Administrative Instruction. There were no pre-approved criteria properly set for evaluating her candidacy at the 15-day mark. This failure to consider the Applicant at the 15-day mark constitutes a breach of the United Nations staff selection procedures and a violation of the Applicant’s rights to due process in the selection exercise. No provision of ST/AI/1999/9 was breached in the circumstances as it was never relevant at any stage of the selection process. The failure of the Programme Manager to inform the Applicant of the outcome of the selection process is both a breach of section 9.5 of ST/AI/2006/3 and a violation of the right of the Applicant to be so informed. This made the Applicant suffer psychologically. The Applicant’s rights were injured during the course of the selection process.