Rule 110.4(c)

  • Appendix B
  • Chapter IV
  • Chapter IX
  • Chapter VII
  • Chapter X
  • Chapter XI
  • Rule 1.2(h)
  • Rule 10.2
  • Rule 10.2(a)(ix)
  • Rule 10.3(a)
  • Rule 10.4(c)
  • Rule 10.4b
  • Rule 101.1
  • Rule 101.2(2)
  • Rule 101.2(a)
  • Rule 101.2(b)
  • Rule 101.2(c)
  • Rule 101.2(d)
  • Rule 101.2(g)
  • Rule 101.2(h)
  • Rule 101.4(a)
  • Rule 103.13
  • Rule 103.20
  • Rule 103.21(a)
  • Rule 103.24
  • Rule 103.24(a)
  • Rule 103.7(d)(ii)
  • Rule 103.9
  • Rule 103.9(a)
  • Rule 104.1
  • Rule 104.10
  • Rule 104.10(a)
  • Rule 104.12
  • Rule 104.12(a)
  • Rule 104.12(b)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(i)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(ii)
  • Rule 104.12(b)(iii)
  • Rule 104.13
  • Rule 104.13(a)
  • Rule 104.13(c)
  • Rule 104.14
  • Rule 104.14(a)(i)
  • Rule 104.14(h)(i)
  • Rule 104.15
  • Rule 104.15(b)(i)
  • Rule 104.3
  • Rule 104.4
  • Rule 104.4(e)
  • Rule 104.6
  • Rule 104.6(b)
  • Rule 104.7
  • Rule 104.7(a)
  • Rule 104.8
  • Rule 105
  • Rule 105.1(b)
  • Rule 105.1(b)(iii)
  • Rule 105.1(c)
  • Rule 105.2
  • Rule 105.2(a)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(ii)
  • Rule 105.2(a)(iii)b
  • Rule 105.3
  • Rule 105.3(d)
  • Rule 105.3(d)(iii)
  • Rule 106.2
  • Rule 106.2(a)
  • Rule 106.2(c)
  • Rule 106.2(g)
  • Rule 106.6
  • Rule 107
  • Rule 107.1
  • Rule 107.21
  • Rule 107.21(h)
  • Rule 107.27
  • Rule 107.28
  • Rule 107.28(c)
  • Rule 107.4(b)
  • Rule 107.6
  • Rule 108.1
  • Rule 108.2
  • Rule 109.1
  • Rule 109.1(b)
  • Rule 109.1(c)
  • Rule 109.1(c)(i)
  • Rule 109.1(c)(ii)(a)
  • Rule 109.15
  • Rule 109.3
  • Rule 109.5(h)
  • Rule 109.7
  • Rule 109.7(a)
  • Rule 109.8
  • Rule 11.2
  • Rule 11.2(c)
  • Rule 110.1
  • Rule 110.2
  • Rule 110.2(a)
  • Rule 110.3
  • Rule 110.3(a)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(i)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(iv)
  • Rule 110.3(a)(viii)
  • Rule 110.3(b)
  • Rule 110.3(b)(i)
  • Rule 110.3(vii)
  • Rule 110.4
  • Rule 110.4(a)
  • Rule 110.4(c)
  • Rule 110.7
  • Rule 110.7(b)
  • Rule 111
  • Rule 111.1
  • Rule 111.2
  • Rule 111.2(a)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(f)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(i)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(i)(ii)
  • Rule 111.2(a)(ii)
  • Rule 111.2(c)
  • Rule 111.2(c)(iii)
  • Rule 111.2(e)
  • Rule 111.2(f)
  • Rule 111.2(p)
  • Rule 111.2(q)
  • Rule 111.4(b)
  • Rule 112.2
  • Rule 112.2(a)
  • Rule 112.2(b)
  • Rule 112.2(f)
  • Rule 112.3
  • Rule 112.7
  • Rule 200.2(b)
  • Rule 204.3
  • Rule 204.3(d)
  • Rule 205.3(a)(iii)
  • Rule 208.5(a)
  • Rule 209.2(a)
  • Rule 209.2(c)
  • Rule 209.5
  • Rule 3
  • Rule 3.13(a)(iii)
  • Rule 3.17(c)(ii)
  • Rule 301.1
  • Rule 301.3
  • Rule 301.3(d)
  • Rule 301.3(q)(ii)
  • Rule 301.4
  • Rule 304.1
  • Rule 304.3
  • Rule 304.4
  • Rule 304.4(a)
  • Rule 304.4(b)
  • Rule 304(a)
  • Rule 309.2
  • Rule 309.3
  • Rule 309.4
  • Rule 309.5(a)
  • Rule 309.5(b)
  • Rule 310.1
  • Rule 310.1(e)(ii)
  • Rule 310.1(e)(iv)
  • Rule 311.1
  • Rule 312.6
  • Rule 4.17
  • Rule 4.4(b)
  • Rule 5.3
    • Showing 1 - 3 of 3
    2013-UNAT-291, Perelli

    UNAT considered two appeals by Ms Perelli, against judgment Nos. UNDT/2012/034 and UNDT/2012/100. On the matter of due process, given Ms Perelli had the opportunity to rebut allegations and contents of the relevant report, UNAT held that these procedural steps were part of her due process entitlements and, to the extent that UNDT found the Administration to have respected these procedural steps, UNAT upheld the finding of UNDT. UNAT held that the Investigation Panel report satisfied neither the remit given to it nor the statutory requirements of ST/AI/371. UNAT held that Ms Perelli was...

    UNDT/2011/067, Borhom

    The initial fact-finding investigation was fundamentally flawed, unreliable and a sham. The failure to conduct a proper investigation but to resort to arm-chair analysis and conclusions based on the unreliable initial fact-finding investigation was not only useless but constituted a violation of the provisions of ST/Al/371 and the Applicant's due process rights. The Preliminary Investigation Report is characterized by a lack of direct evidence from the alleged victims and a heavy reliance on second hand evidence made by third party witnesses. The IGO/Investigation Unit failed to establish...

    UNDT/2012/079, Nyepan

    Attempted theft: In the instant case, the Applicant’s counsel cites the 23 June 2011 Judgment and argued that “it follows that whereas the offence of an attempt to commit an act that could amount, if completed, to misconduct is not envisaged as a sanctionable offence within the prevailing legislative framework of the United Nations, the dismissal of the Applicant must be held to have been ultra vires.” This interpretation and application of the Tribunal’s reasoning in the said judgment to this case and the Applicant’s circumstances is misconceived and misleading. This is because the offence of...