Hearings in camera (167,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Hearings in camera
Total judgments found: 1

• Judgment 3995

  
  126th Session, 2018
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the measures taken by IFAD following its investigation into his allegations of harassment.

  Considerations 5-6

  Extract:

  That is why the Tribunal, after examining in camera the investigation reports produced by IFAD at its request, concluded that, while it was appropriate to order that they be shared with the complainant, they should first be redacted in order to remove any indications and passages which might reveal the identity of the witnesses. These same considerations will lead the Tribunal to deny the complainant’s request for disclosure of all the evidence stemming from the investigation process because, apart from the fact that producing it would be of little use at this stage of the proceedings, it might reveal some items of information which should legitimately remain confidential.
  Nevertheless, by refusing to disclose the AUO reports to the complainant during the internal appeal process, when it should have done so in the redacted form described above, IFAD unlawfully deprived him of a genuine opportunity to challenge the findings of the investigation. In addition, although IFAD submits that on 5 May 2014 the complainant received an email summarising those findings, having regard to the text of that email, this action did not remedy the non-disclosure of the investigation reports themselves.
  Lastly, in this case, the fact that the complainant was ultimately able to obtain copies of these reports during the proceedings before the Tribunal does not remedy the flaw tainting the internal appeal process. While the Tribunal’s case law recognises that, in some cases, the non-disclosure of evidence can be corrected when this flaw is subsequently remedied in proceedings before it (see, for example, Judgment 3117, under 11), that is not the case where the document in question is of vital importance having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, as it is here (see Judgments 2315, under 27, 3490, under 33, or the above-mentioned Judgment 3831, under 16, 17 and 29).
  It follows from the foregoing, without it being necessary to examine the complainant’s other pleas, that the decision of 11 September 2015 must be set aside, since it was reached at the end of an internal appeal process which was unlawful in three respects.
  At this stage of proceedings, the Tribunal would normally have referred the case back to IFAD in order that it might be taken up again in proceedings complying with due process. However, in view of the time which has elapsed since the events and since, as stated earlier, the complainant has now received the investigation reports and been able to comment on them, the Tribunal considers it more appropriate, in the particular circumstances of the case, to deal directly with the merits of the case.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2315, 3117, 3490, 3831
  

  Keywords:

  disclosure of evidence; hearings in camera;