ÉñÂíÎçÒ¹¸£ÀûÍø

The disciplinary decision was based on two allegations: first, that the staff member committed a physical assault during a domestic dispute; and second, that the staff member failed to immediately report an arrest and criminal proceedings to the Secretary?General, contrary to staff rule 1.5(d). Regarding the assault allegation, the Tribunal found the evidence sufficient and compelling. It relied on contemporaneous police records, a judicial order of protection identifying the staff member as the aggressor, photographic evidence of injury, consistent sworn statements obtained during the investigation, and corroborating testimony from third parties who observed the victim¡¯s immediate distress. By contrast, the staff member¡¯s version of events was marked by material inconsistencies and was unsupported by external evidence. The Tribunal therefore rejected the claim of self?defence and concluded that a physical assault causing injury had been established. On the reporting obligation, the Tribunal reaffirmed that staff rule 1.5(d) imposes a strict and immediate duty to report an arrest or criminal proceedings, irrespective of whether the matter is private, later dismissed, or sealed. A delay of over one year in notifying the Organization constituted a clear breach. The Tribunal rejected arguments based on ignorance of the rule or reliance on private legal advice. The Tribunal determined that the established facts amounted to serious misconduct under staff regulations 1.2(a), (b), and (f), which require respect for human dignity, integrity, and conduct befitting the status of an international civil servant at all times. The sanction was proportionate and due process was fully respected.