�山����

The Respondent conceded that the proper procedure in the assessment of the Applicant’s complaint was not followed because she was not interviewed by OIAI as required by section 5.14 of CF/EXD/2012-007. The Tribunal found that the procedural irregularity in this case not only constitutes a serious breach of the applicable framework but it also violates the Applicant’s due process rights as a complainant. The complainant’s interview is a mandatory and essential step in the preliminary assessment of the complaint as it prompts the staff member to clarify the allegations, to ensure all available evidence is submitted or eventually added to the initial complaint and to explore the possibilities of informal resolution. The Tribunal highlighted that it is incumbent on the Organization to comply with its own regulatory framework and to ensure the complaint is properly assessed. This is particularly important when the Organization decides, as in the present case, to close the case following a preliminary assessment of the complaint. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the contested decision was unlawful. The Tribunal further noted that while UNICEF Executive Directive CF/EXD/2012 007 Amend.1 does not foresee any time limit to conclude an investigation into a complaint, a period of 16 months to review the Applicant’s complaint, without even interviewing her, was unreasonable. In light of the above and pursuant to art. 10.5(a) of its Statute, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to OIAI, UNICEF for a renewed assessment of the Applicant’s complaint undertaken in compliance with the applicable procedure. The Applicant’s request for compensation for moral harm was rejected.