Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT refused the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing because it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case¡±, (Article 18(1) Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Rules). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that there were ¡°inordinate delays both at reviewing and assessing the complaint and in setting [up] a fact-finding panel and conducting the investigation itself¡± and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA was in breach of ST/SGB/2008/5. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that the Appellant failed to demonstrate on appeal any error by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that would justify the reversal of its judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Appellant¡¯s claims on appeal were essentially a repetition of her arguments that did not succeed before the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s case was fully and fairly considered by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that there was no alleged error that would have changed the outcome of her case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the findings of the fact-findings panel and the non-disclosure of the fact-finding report by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAMA). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the fact-finding panel¡¯s findings were not an appealable decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also held that the Secretary-General did not breach the Applicant¡¯s rights by not sharing with her the full report of the investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation ¡°for the inordinate delay in handling her complaint,¡± but rejected the Applicant¡¯s other requested remedies and pleas.
Legal Principle(s)
The appeals procedure is of a corrective nature and is not an opportunity for a dissatisfied party to reargue his or her case; rather, an appellant must demonstrate that the court below has committed an error of fact or law warranting intervention by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT.