Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for anonymity finding that there were no exceptional circumstances that could warrant departing from the general principles and from the well-established jurisprudence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the theoretical fear of upcoming uncomfortable relationships between members of the staff did not have merit. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request to file a reply to the Respondent¡¯s answer finding no exceptional circumstances justifying an additional pleading. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s second motion seeking leave to present additional ¡°information¡± which she claimed related to further allegations of retaliation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was an attempt to supplement the appeal or to make submissions that could have been previously presented. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s express withdrawal of the remedies originally requested before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had rendered the appeal moot as judicial economy and efficiency require Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to decline to examine appeals that do not seek any concrete remedy which can be awarded. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her appointment with ICTR. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was not receivable as the Applicant was not contesting a final decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected the request for anonymity since there was no evidence that the Applicant¡¯s reputation had been damaged outside the ICTR and the pleadings and associated documents did not reveal any information requiring protection. The Applicant appealed. Later the Applicant filed a motion seeking leave to file additional pleadings and another, after the Secretary-General¡¯s opposition to the first motion, seeking leave to present additional information.
Legal Principle(s)
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT¡¯s jurisprudence shows that the names of litigants are routinely included in judgments of the internal justice system of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ in the interests of transparency and accountability, and personal embarrassment and discomfort are not sufficient grounds to grant confidentiality. An appeal is an instrument to pursue a change of a judicial decision, in the form of modification, annulment, or vacation, used to repair a concrete grievance directly caused by the impugned judgment. Judicial economy and efficiency require that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT declines to examine appeals that do not seek any concrete remedy which could be awarded and only rely on the party¡¯s will to be found to be right in its position against the judgment under appeal, without seeking any actual change in the judgment itself.