¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned decision was made following the correct procedure and was based on well-founded evidence. Accordingly, the Application was dismissed. Denial of claim based on evidentiary grounds: The Tribunal observed that in assessing the Applicant’s claim for compensation, the principle issue for the ABCC was whether the injury resulted as a natural incident of performing duties on behalf of the United Nations. This was a question of fact to be established by evidence. The Tribunal held that the functions of ABCC include making recommendations on claims for compensation. In the proper exercise of this function it is bound to evaluate the evidence in relation to both elements to be considered by the Secretary–General when reaching a decision on a claim for compensation, namely did the claimant suffer an injury and was the injury attributable to the performance of official duties on behalf of the United Nations. Well-founded evidence: The Tribunal concluded that given the gap in time between the date of the alleged injury during which the Applicant continued to work, and in the absence of any reliable contemporaneous corroborating evidence of the alleged incident it was lawful and reasonable for the ABCC to recommend that the Applicant’s claim be denied on the basis that it did not have sufficient evidence to attribute the injury to the performance of official duties.Specification of documents by ABCC: The Tribunal concluded that the ABCC did not go beyond its authority by specifying the exact documentation necessary for an applicant to produce in order to be considered for compensation. The documents it requested were relevant to the purpose of determination of entitlements under Appendix D.