¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not commit an error in procedure, such as to affect the decision of the case pursuant to Article 2(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT rejected the argument that the fact that the Appellant did not receive the recordings of the hearing or transcript affected the decision of the case. UNAT held that the Appellant merely repeated arguments raised before UNRWA DT. UNAT accepted UNRWA DT’s finding that the Appellant had ample opportunity to respond to allegations and provide comments on the investigation report and exhibits. UNAT held that UNRWA DT made fundamental errors of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, namely in assessing the credibility of the evidence of the Complainant and the Appellant and in dismissing the Complainant’s retraction without supporting evidence. UNAT held that the evidential standards were not met to support the finding that there was clear and convincing evidence that established to a high degree of probability that the alleged misconduct had occurred. UNAT found no merit in the Appellant’s argument that his due process rights were violated. UNAT held that UNRWA DT erred in law in its interpretation of UNRWA GSC No. 07/2010. UNAT remanded the matter back to UNRWA DT for a rehearing before a different judge for additional findings of fact.