s10. Putting Staff at Risk

The Tribunal did not rule on the claim that the defendant organization exposed me to serious security risk by breaching UNDSS’ recommendations. The Tribunal did not take into account the appeal committee’s finding and recommendation “Regarding the fact that [I] was never provided with a satellite phone, contrary to UN Security recommendations. The Committee considered that, whether or not this was an act or retaliation, and irrespective of the reason for this deficiency and of whether other CTAs were also concerned, this was a serious security breach and appropriate action should be taken by the Organization as soon as possible if none was taken at the time”. The Tribunal did not take into account that this breach is considered a violation of human rights, as Article 3 of UDHR stated “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.

The Tribunal did not take into account “security risk” was never defined as “harassment” but it is identified as “situation which poses a possible threat to the security”. However the Tribunal wrongly agreed that this allegation to be investigated by investigation panel on harassment, it criticized the panel for applying considerations of intentional harm and malice as these are irrelevant considerations in the finding of harassment by the panel. The Tribunal stated “[It] is clear that the Panel did not apply the Policy on the Prevention of Harassment correctly. For example, there were instances in which the Panel applied considerations of intentional harm and malice when these are irrelevant considerations in the finding of harassment. The Panel erred when it found that the respondents, i.e. the Programme Coordinator and the Programme Officer, intended no harm to the complainant by failing to issue him with a satellite telephone”.