4. Comments on Judgment 3634

However facts and evidence that I submitted in my case were obvious, documented and confirmed by the defendant organization (FAO), they were not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal stated “[I] completely ignores the fact that all claims that were not accepted by the Tribunal were specifically rejected in point 4 of the Tribunal’s decision”. The Tribunal rejected my claims without any justification. It seems arbitrarily decision by ILO Tribunal is the theme of the Tribunal to cover up retaliation against whistleblowers on corruption and money laundering by United Nations.

The Tribunal contradicts itself. It stated “It is well settled that the Tribunal’s judgments are final and that they may only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances and solely on the grounds of failure to take account of a particular fact, a mistaken finding of fact that involves no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on a claim. Additionally the ground on which review is sought must be one that would have led to a different result in the earlier proceedings”. In fact, I submitted dozens of allegations on failure to take account of particular facts, mistaken findings of facts that involve no exercise of judgment, omission to rule on claims (please, see my application for review of judgment 3593). In addition, these allegations would significantly have led to a different result in the earlier proceedings. Ironically, the Tribunal alleged that none of these allegations was submitted.

The Tribunal stated “The complainant’s arguments, as summarised, demonstrate that the present application for review does not raise any of the above grounds for review and that it is merely an attempt to re-litigate matters that were conclusively decided in Judgment 3593”. This statement is arbitration. It seems that the Tribunal relies on the procedure that only judgment is declared in public but not the application for review, which gives it an advantage to say anything not true. It is not ethical that the Tribunal denied facts and evidenced allegations in my application.

The Tribunal stated “As [my application for review of judgment] is devoid of merit, it must be summarily dismissed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Rules of the Tribunal”. However, there is nothing in the mentioned procedure may be applicable to my application for review of judgment. It seems the Tribunal intended to blunder. The procedure provided in Article 7 stated “If the dispute regards only a question (or questions) of law, identified by agreement of both parties, and the main facts are uncontested, the parties may agree, at any time prior to the assignment of the complaint to a Tribunal session, to apply to the President of the Tribunal for a fast-track procedure. The parties must submit their pleadings as prescribed in Articles 6, 8 and 9 of these Rules, and in accordance with Article VII of the Statute and the additional provisions set forth in Annex 2 to these Rules. All pleadings shall be brief and shall focus on the agreed contested question(s) of law and on the consequent remedies, and include the succinct statement of the reason(s) supporting the opinion(s) advanced. Attachments to the application(s) shall be limited to documents directly related to the question(s) of law”. However, the dispute does not regard a question (or questions) of law, the dispute was not identified by agreement of both parties, the main facts were not uncontested and the parties did not agree, at any time prior to the assignment of the complaint to a Tribunal session.

I concluded that ILO Tribunal’s Judgment 3634 is arbitrary intended merely to protect United Nations against a whistleblower’s allegations of retaliations.