�山����

1)Whether the facts on which the disciplinary measure was based have been established: Transmission of pornographic images: Regardless of the Applicant’s intent, the Tribunal found that it is established by clear and convincing evidence that he transmitted pornographic images (images of male genitalia) to and from his �山����Women email account. Incidents involving Mr. SL: Considering the entire evidence, the Tribunal found Mr. SL’s accounts credible which were corroborated by other evidence. It was established by clear and convincing evidence that the Applicant inappropriately touched Mr. SL and made sexual jokes. The Tribunal rejected the Applicant’s claim that Mr. SL was never uncomfortable with him as shown by his continued contact with him and Mr. SL only fabricated allegations against him after some disputes. The evidence corroborates Mr. SL’s accounts of the events and his conduct after the facts does not disprove it. Moreover, given the Applicant’s position of authority, Mr. SL’s fear and reason for keeping in touch with the Applicant after the incidents are reasonable and credible. The Tribunal also rejected the Applicant’s claim that several individuals who had serious disputes with him conspired with Mr. SL to fabricate allegations against him since Mr. SL’s accounts were supported by other evidence. Incidents involving Victim 2: Victim 2’s accounts were not corroborated and there were even discrepancies in his accounts, which could not be resolved due to the fact that Victim 2 remained anonymous and could not be further examined at the hearing. The Applicant also denied the allegations. Therefore, the Tribunal found that these allegations were not established by clear and convincing evidence. Incidents involving Mr. OA: Mr. OA testified that the Applicant sent him messages at night to have a conversation and asked him to take and send pictures of himself, which he did. The Tribunal found Mr. OA’s accounts credible, which were corroborated by another witness’s testimony, to whom Mr. OA shared his concerns contemporaneously. 2)Whether the established facts legally amount to misconduct The transmission of pornographic images to and from the Applicant’s work email account cannot be considered permitted personal use of ICT resources and therefore the established facts amount to misuse of ICT resources. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s conduct against Mr. SL amount to sexual exploitation and abuse as well as sexual harassment. Mr. SL, who was a young individual leading a non-profit organization he founded, was clearly in a position of differential power and vulnerability considering that the Applicant was a senior staff member at the United Nations. The Applicant then exploited this position for sexual purposes. The Applicant’s conduct toward Mr. SL caused offense and humiliation to Mr. SL. Even if Mr. SL did not clearly express his discomfort and it appeared that he went along with the Applicant’s sexual jokes and physical touching, the Applicant should have realized that his conduct might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause offense and humiliation to Mr. SL. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s conduct against Mr. OA was improper and unwelcome conduct that met the definition of harassment considering that Mr. OA considered the Applicant’s behavior odd and confusing and increasingly uncomfortable. The Tribunal did not find that such conduct amounts to abuse of authority since while the Applicant was a senior staff member and Mr. OA an intern and they met at a work setting, they belonged to different organizations and were not in any direct supervisor-supervisee relationship. While the Applicant provided advice and assistance to Mr. OA, there is no evidence that the Applicant improperly used his position of influence, power or authority toward Mr. OA in his engagement with Mr. OA. 3)Whether the disciplinary measure applied was proportionate to the offence While the alleged misconduct concerning Victim 2 was not established by clear and convincing evidence and the Applicant’s conduct against Mr. OA did not amount to abuse of authority, the sanction was adequate and proportionate to the gravity of the offense considering the seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct toward Mr. OA and Mr. SL. Sexual misconduct including sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment are considered serious misconduct by the Organization and under the jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal. 4)Whether the staff member’s due process rights have been respected The Tribunal found that several witnesses violated the confidentiality requirement by speaking to the media and investigators made inappropriate comments during the interviews with the Applicant. However, these procedural irregularities did not impact the outcome of the investigation. Despite investigators’ inappropriate comments, they otherwise conducted a thorough and fair investigation by interviewing additional witnesses identified by the Applicant, performing site visits as suggested by the Applicant, and exploring all other issues raised by the Applicant. Further, there was no evidence that the media reports unduly influenced and compromised the investigation and disciplinary process. When the first media report was published, the investigation was already completed and the Applicant was provided with draft investigation reports for his comments. Despite procedural issues discussed above, this is the case where there is clear and convincing evidence of grave misconduct, and any procedural issues were rectified by the Tribunal’s de novo review of all the facts and a judicial review of all the aspects of the case.