Category: Sexual Harrassment

“Just Let’s Wiggle a Little Bit”: Survivors Expose Sexual Harassment in UNHCR

This week, I continue my mission to expose the endemic issue of sexual harassment within the United Nations system. Once again, UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency, finds itself under the spotlight.

The sexual predator, a senior staff member holding the position of Deputy Representative of UNHCR Operations in Niger at the P5 level, was the second-highest-ranking official in the country office. This article is based on the recent judgment, Kourouma v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (UNDT/2024/107), issued on December 6, 2024. The original version of the judgment is in French, but I am writing this article in English to reach a wider audience.

Let’s hear it directly from the testimonies of the three survivors.

“Just Let’s Wiggle a Little Bit”: A Traumatic Experience

MW – Senior Programme Monitoring Officer at UNHCR Libya, based in Tunis, Tunisia.

MW, a senior staff member based in Tunisia, recounted an incident during her mission to Niger in 2018. Her testimony revealed how, on the last day of her mission, the perpetrator invited her to his office under professional pretenses. As they bid farewell, he forcibly hugged her, attempted to kiss her on the mouth, and when she turned her head away, kissed her cheek instead. MW recounted how he said in French,

“Ah, tu ne veux pas être embrassée ?” or “Tu aimes pas ça ?” (“Oh, you don’t want to be kissed?” or “You don’t like that?”),

and then added in English,

“Just let’s wiggle a little bit”

as he pressed his body against hers and rubbed his genitals against her lower abdomen. She left the office immediately, deeply shocked and horrified by the experience.

Caught in the Predator’s Gaze

JL – Refugee Status Determination Expert, Associate Staff Member, UNHCR Niger.

JL, an associate staff member who joined UNHCR Niger in September 2019, described an unsettling incident on December 2, 2021. At the time, JL and the perpetrator had minimal contact due to their lack of professional overlap. On that day, as JL was sitting with a colleague after lunch, the perpetrator entered the room unexpectedly and placed his hand on JL’s shoulder, ostensibly to massage her.

When JL stood to fetch water, she felt the perpetrator’s gaze fixed inappropriately on her chest. Upon returning, he caressed her hand and ring, inquiring whether it was an engagement ring or a wedding band. Feeling uncomfortable and caught off guard, JL answered ambiguously. He then shifted the conversation to his own ring before JL left the room, deeply uneasy.

“I felt trapped and deeply uncomfortable, yet I didn’t know how to react given his seniority. Why was he doing this? We didn’t have any kind of relationship, and it was during the pandemic when personal contact was discouraged. I couldn’t understand his fixation with my ring; it felt invasive and deeply inappropriate.”

“La Petite”: Harassment Escalates Into Retaliation

GR1 – Associate External Relations Officer, UNHCR Niger.

GR1, an Associate External Relations Officer in Niger, endured persistent and invasive harassment from the perpetrator throughout her tenure. His behavior escalated over time, crossing professional boundaries and becoming increasingly inappropriate.

The perpetrator frequently hugged GR1, with these embraces lasting too long and bringing her chest close to his. He would touch her back, hair, or even her buttocks, behaviors she described as inappropriate and “beyond simple greetings.”

Each time he saw her—whether in the hallway or her office—he would touch her or caress her in ways that were uncomfortable and unwelcome. She attempted to ask him to stop but was ignored.

The perpetrator made phone calls to GR1 outside of work hours, which were often unrelated to professional matters. He attempted to invite her out, but she declined, explaining that she was not interested and had a young baby she was nursing.

When GR1 resisted his advances, the perpetrator retaliated by criticizing her job performance and casting doubts on her career prospects. His abuse of authority created an environment where GR1 felt compelled to avoid him, sometimes even hesitating to come to work.

GR1 recounted how the perpetrator avoided using her name and instead referred to her dismissively as “la petite” (the little one), a term she found inappropriate in a professional setting.

“Every time he hugged me, it felt like more than a greeting—it was intimate, sexual, and deeply unsettling. He touched me as one might touch a lover, sometimes even in the presence of others. It made me feel powerless and degraded. I began to avoid him at all costs, sometimes even dreading going to work. He abused his authority, and I couldn’t bring myself to report him. When I resisted his advances, he turned on me, questioning my competence and sabotaging my career prospects.”

Systemic Failures in Institutional Accountability

The testimonies of these three survivors underscore the systemic failure within the United Nations to address sexual harassment effectively. Their accounts are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of unchecked abuse, enabled by institutional inertia and a lack of accountability.

The tribunal’s findings are a critical indictment of both the perpetrator and the institution’s response mechanisms. The judgment noted the organization’s failure to address systemic issues. Despite UNHCR’s Code of Conduct sessions and policies on harassment, the supervisor’s behavior persisted unchecked for years. Indeed, one must ask, why did this senior staff member continue to sexually harass women without any action taken against him?

Gaslighting as a New Weapon: “Sexism Against Men”

During the tribunal hearing, the perpetrator attempted to deflect blame by claiming “sexism against men,” suggesting that male managers were the real victims. He argued,

“It’s unfair that female employees behave in certain ways towards men and then complain of harassment and discrimination.”

This statement highlights a troubling and insidious new tactic employed by some senior male staff: weaponizing claims of reverse sexism to undermine genuine complaints. Such gaslighting adds another layer to the persistent problem of sexual harassment and serves to silence victims further while deflecting accountability from perpetrators.

The survivors’ reluctance to report their experiences speaks volumes about the culture of retaliation within the UN. Their silence is not an isolated phenomenon but rather indicative of a pervasive fear that reporting misconduct will result in swift and career-ending retribution. Take a loot at the the case of Martina Brostrom, who dared to denounce Luis Loures. Brostrom faced severe professional and personal consequences after coming forward with allegations. For readers interested in learning more about her ordeal, resources detailing her case can be accessed here. Her experience demonstrates the dire need for robust protections for whistleblowers within the UN system.

Inefficiency of the Ethics Office and Reporting Mechanisms

The Ethics Office, tasked with safeguarding staff from retaliation, is emblematic of the systemic rot within the UN. Staff in the Ethics Office have no real or genuine interest in understanding the complexity of such cases, and I don’t blame them. They are severely understaffed and receive hundreds of complaints every day. Moreover, there is no segregation between reporting lines, meaning the office often ends up reporting to the Executive Office, creating yet another conflict of interest. This deeply flawed system fails to inspire confidence and leaves victims vulnerable to further abuse. And so, the saga continues.

Credibility of Victim Testimony: The Power of Voice Without Witnesses

Another important reminder from this judgment is the emphasis made again by the UNDT on the credibility of the victims’ testimonies. The tribunal emphasized that credible oral testimonies are sufficient to establish allegations of sexual harassment, even in the absence of corroborating evidence. It highlighted the consistency and detail in the victims’ accounts as key factors in reaching its decision.

As the UN Dispute Tribunal noted in Applicant UNDT/2022/071, paras. 76-77, in cases of sexual harassment,

“due consideration must be given to the victim’s account, as these situations are not taken lightly by those affected. In fact, due to the sensitive nature of the matter, it is often extremely difficult for victims to file formal complaints and go through official procedures.”

It is well-established that

“in cases of sexual harassment, credible oral testimony alone can be fully sufficient to substantiate a conclusion of serious misconduct, even without additional corroboration” (Hallal; Haidar 2021-UNAT-1076, para. 43).

Further, the tribunal dismissed arguments that cultural misunderstandings could explain the perpetrator’s behavior. It reaffirmed that the perception of the victim is central to determining harassment.

Unmasking Predators: Survivors Take a Stand

Both UNHCR, the agency tasked with protecting refugees, and OHCHR, entrusted with upholding human rights, appear to be grappling with an alarming increase in sexual predators within their ranks. Many of these perpetrators remain employed and unpunished, while their victims continue to suffer in silence. Victims and survivors speak to me daily, sharing stories of fear, retaliation, and prolonged sick leave as their only escape from the hostile work environment. How can these organizations continue to turn a blind eye to such pervasive misconduct?

What we are witnessing now is a form of reverse accountability. Victims and survivors no longer trust in the system designed to protect them.

Neither the Secretary-General, the OIOS, the IGO, the Ethics Office, nor the Ombudsman have taken meaningful action to provide genuine safeguards or justice. Instead, survivors are left to fend for themselves, their trust in the system completely eroded. Many have shifted their focus from seeking protection to demanding exposure of their abusers.

They want these sexual predators held accountable and their contracts terminated, and I agree with them.

A Serial Kisser in the UN: When Harassment Is Dismissed as Festive Fun

⚠️ Trigger Warning: This article contains detailed descriptions of workplace sexual harassment, which may be distressing to some readers, especially survivors of similar experiences. Please proceed with caution and prioritize your well-being.

“I’m a serial kisser.”

These were the chilling words of AAY, a P-5 level United Nations staff member, at UNHQ in New Yorkwhen describing his behavior during a farewell party at the United Nations headquarters in 2017. AAY’s actions that evening went far beyond social decorum, as he admitted to forcibly kissing, attempting to kiss, and physically restraining several female colleagues, leaving them shaken and traumatized.

In a UNAT judgment issued last week, AAY v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Judgment No. 2024-UNAT-1493, the Appeals Tribunal reversed a previous UNDT judgment (Applicant v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UNDT/2023/111) that astonishingly justified the actions of the “serial kisser” because they occurred in a festive context. The UNDT, presided over by Judge Margaret Tibulya, ruled that AAY’s actions could not “reasonably be perceived to cause offence or humiliation, let alone to give any sexual connotation to the conduct,” given the festive nature of the event. 

This rationale, implying that workplace harassment is excusable at a party, is as baffling as it is dangerous.

Bias in Judgment: How Cultural Disparities and Selection Failures Undermine the UNDT

What does this mean for female staff members of the United Nations?

According to this logic, if you attend an end-of-year party or a Christmas gathering, and your boss or colleague forces himself on you, attempts to kiss you, or chases you down a hallway, you should simply brush it off.

Maybe so says the UN tribunal, as the “festive context” seems to render such behavior acceptable. One might sarcastically conclude that this is the justice system’s way of reminding women to avoid social gatherings entirely—lest they accidentally wander into a no-rules zone where basic human dignity no longer applies.

Are we moving forward or backward with this system of justice? A tribunal tasked with protecting the rights and dignity of United Nations staff instead normalized behavior that undermines safety and equality in the workplace. If workplace sexual harassment can be brushed aside as “festive,” one must question the integrity of the system itself.

What could have caused Judge Tibulya to be blinded in her judgment? While UNDT judges are selected based on recommendations from the Internal Justice Council, emphasizing high moral character, impartiality, and geographical representation, this process does not eliminate the potential for judges to bring their own cultural biases and preconceptions into their decisions.

Judges, like all individuals, carry their own perspectives and values, which may not always align with the principles of justice and equality upheld by the United Nations. Perhaps it is time to include specific training for UNDT judges not only on the organization’s zero-tolerance policies but also on recognizing and mitigating their own biases to ensure their decisions reflect UN values and uphold fairness.

How else can they understand that the setting of the misconduct does not absolve the perpetrator of responsibility? It’s alarming that in 2024, we are forced to reexamine the very basics of workplace ethics and accountability.

AAY’s admissions to investigators were nothing short of appalling. He admitted, “I was trying to kiss her, and that’s why she was retracting,” and “I kissed her or I managed to kiss her on the forehead…she retracted, you know just leaning on the back.” When questioned about holding AA’s face and forcing a kiss on her, he casually replied, “Yeah, that’s how it went actually,” and added, “it’s like what you do when you kiss someone, you take the face and then you kiss him.” Shockingly, he downplayed the incident further, remarking, “It was not like this was the most romantic moment in my life let’s say.”

Despite these confessions, corroborated by testimony from the victims, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) found that the evidence did not meet the threshold for establishing misconduct. Astonishingly, the tribunal rationalized its decision by stating that the incidents occurred in a “festive context,” as though the celebratory atmosphere excused AAY’s actions.

Serial Kisser’s Defense: It Was All Just Festive Fun

AAY’s behavior, by his own account, included intrusive and unwelcome physical advances toward three female staff members. Excerpts from the testimonies of these three women are chilling:

  • AA: “I kept on resisting then he … sort of forced my head down and kissed me on the forehead.”
  • BB: “He grabbed my face in front of everyone … my instinct at that moment was to freeze … it could have been a bit of an out-of-body experience.”
  • CC: “He kept asking, ‘Did I kiss you tonight? Let me kiss you.’ I said, ‘I’m not interested.’ I started shouting, ‘I’m not interested.’ He pulled my hands apart forcefully. I felt it was impossible for me to get out of that grip.”
  • CC (continued): “He fell on me, and I used all my strength to push him away. I almost bent completely back trying to avoid him. His whole body was on top of me, and I felt utterly trapped.”

These women’s testimonies highlight the physical and psychological trauma they endured. CC described the night as “traumatic,” adding that she “was utterly shocked… like this is my office space and colleagues who I saw every day.” The lingering impact of the event was severe, with victims reporting sleepless nights, anxiety attacks, and feelings of helplessness.

Excusing Harassment: A Dangerous Message from the UNDT

The UNDT’s handling of this case is nothing short of a dereliction of justice. By dismissing clear evidence of misconduct and prioritizing flimsy contextual justifications over the dignity, safety, and rights of the victims, the tribunal has sent an unacceptable and dangerous message. Allowing harassment to be excused under the guise of a “festive context” trivializes the severity of the misconduct and undermines the United Nations’ professed commitment to equality and accountability. Thankfully, the UNAT overturned this troubling judgment, restoring some semblance of justice. The victims’ courage in coming forward should serve as a reminder that workplace safety and dignity are non-negotiable.

However, the victims had to endure an agonizing seven-year wait for this final judgment, as the case was remanded multiple times, delaying closure and accountability. Adding to the indignity, in a stark departure from established jurisprudence, the name of the perpetrator was anonymized, shielding him from the full consequences of his actions and depriving the victims of the transparency they deserved.

Why can’t these senior leaders understand that sexual harassment is a real offense and that a woman has an unequivocal right to say no? The repeated recruitment of individuals who exploit their power and disregard the fundamental principles of dignity and respect raises urgent questions about the United Nations’ commitment to upholding its own values.

Why does it take the UN eight years to deliver justice? And why does it continue to allow predators to occupy positions of authority within its ranks, further tarnishing the trust of those they are meant to protect?

This case is a stark reminder of how far the system must go to achieve meaningful reform and ensure workplace safety, no matter the setting.

UNDT Judgment Exposes Culture of Impunity for Senior Sexual Predators

In a shocking judgment issued last week UNDT/2024/100 ATR vs. SG of the United Nations, the UNDT exposed the United Nations’ fallacious standards regarding #sexualharassment and the preferential treatment afforded to some of its senior sexual predators.

Despite numerous policies such as ST/ICs, ST/AIs, and ST/SGBs, allegations of sexual harassment within the #UnitedNations were still rampant by 2017. Secretary-General António Guterres requested the CEB to create a Task Force on Addressing Sexual Harassment within the Organizations of the UN System. Yet today, it seems the “zero-tolerance policy” has become a cherry-picking tool.

In a damning case, Mr. Polinikis Sophocleous, a D-1 level Director and Chief of Finance at the UNOV, was found guilty of sexually harassing a female staff member. The judgment revealed:

  • That the perpetrator made unwelcome physical contact, including hugs, kisses, and stares;
  • That the perpetrator made disturbing comments to the victim, including telling her that he “stroked a doll while naked in his office to relax when stressed”;
  • A hostile environment where the victim felt compelled to alter her attire, avoid him, seek counseling, and search for external opportunities to escape his predatory behavior.

This pattern of conduct was corroborated by witness statements describing his similar behavior toward junior female colleagues.

Despite the investigation substantiating the allegations, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources (ASG/HR) refused to disclose the disciplinary measure imposed on Mr. Sophocleous. The victim was left in the dark about what action, if any, had been taken—until she discovered through the perpetrator’s appeal that the penalty imposed was demotion by one grade with a three-year deferment for promotion eligibility.

A measure so lenient for proven acts of sexual harassment—including physical violations, obscene comments, and sustained psychological harm—not only diminishes the gravity of the misconduct but undermines the UN’s professed commitment to combating such behavior. This revelation starkly betrays the principles of accountability and zero tolerance that the UN claims to uphold in addressing sexual harassment.

What makes this measure even more egregious is the disparity it reveals: lower-level staff guilty of similar misconduct are always terminated, while a senior manager like Mr. Sophocleous escapes with a token punishment.

The Tribunal itself remarked on the absurdity of this disparity, noting that such leniency for senior officials is “contrary to both common sense and to the Organization’s professed zero-tolerance policy.” This leniency, delivered after a staggering three-year delay in sanctions, demonstrates not just systemic inefficiency but a disturbing willingness to shield high-ranking offenders at the expense of victims and accountability.

A Judge Stunned into Commentary

The shockingly lenient punishment so outraged the Tribunal that Judge Sean Wallace, presiding over the case, took the extraordinary step of including a detailed footnote to highlight the absurdity of the UN’s practices. Footnote 1, in particular, exposes the preferential treatment given to managers:

“Although sexual harassment most frequently results in termination of a UN staff member, if the offender is a manager with considerable power over the affected individuals, the most frequently imposed disciplinary measure is that of demotion with deferment of at least one year of eligibility for consideration for promotion.”

The judge’s decision to underscore this disparity in such a public manner reflects his astonishment at the blatant hypocrisy of the UN’s “zero-tolerance” policy. The footnote further critiques the reduced punishment for high-level officials as “contrary to both common sense and to the Organization’s professed zero-tolerance policy.”

Systemic Failures That Embolden Predators

Judge Wallace did not stop at criticizing the punishment; he also detailed systemic failures that protected Mr. Sophocleous:

  • Delays: The Office of Human Resources (OHR) took 16 months to notify the perpetrator of formal allegations and a staggering three years to impose sanctions. Such delays undermine accountability and embolden perpetrators.
  • Opaque Processes: The refusal to disclose the disciplinary measure denied the victim critical reassurance, leaving her to fear encountering her harasser in future roles within the UN system.

Even the most naïve observer would question how such actions align with the UN’s stated policy of zero tolerance.

A Perpetrator-Centered Policy: Exposing the Secretary-General’s Contradictions

One should not blame the Tribunal for the systemic failures exposed in this case.

Every year, the Secretary-General of the United Nations submits his report, Practice of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters and cases of possible criminal behavior, to the General Assembly. In his most recent report, A/78/603, covering the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022, the SG reported that all cases of sexual harassment that were investigated resulted in the termination or dismissal of the staff member. These outcomes were rightly heralded as reinforcing the principle of the UN’s zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment (Ref: 624–628, p. 30 of the SG’s report).

But this raises the critical questions:

  • Why was Mr. Sophocleous, a senior official found guilty of sexual harassment, granted such preferential treatment and allowed to remain on active duty?
  • How can a staff member proven to have engaged in such egregious misconduct be permitted to continue working within the UN system?
  • And how can the Secretary-General continue to strongly proclaim that the “UN will not tolerate sexual harassment in its ranks” when actions such as these blatantly contradict those words? What kind of hypocrisy is this?

Rather than adopting a victim-centered approach, the UN has effectively embraced a perpetrator-centered approach.

The Right to Know: A Landmark Ruling for Victims of Sexual Harassment

In a groundbreaking analysis, the Tribunal ruled for the first time on the victim’s right to be informed of the disciplinary measure imposed on their harasser. The judgment stated:

“The Tribunal finds that the question of whether a victim of sexual harassment has the right to be informed of the discipline imposed on his/her harasser must be resolved. The question before the Tribunal, therefore, is whether informing the victim that the Organization has ‘decided to impose an appropriate disciplinary measure’ complies with the requirement to disclose ‘the outcome of the investigation and of the action taken.’”

The Tribunal unequivocally determined that it did not.

“In this context, saying that one took disciplinary action is not the same as disclosing ‘the action taken.’ It is a tautology; in other words, it is saying the same thing twice over in different words. In effect, the ASG/HR told the victim here that ‘the action taken was to take action.’”

The Tribunal further emphasized that the right of a victim to be informed of the disposition of their case is enshrined in para. 6(a) of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in A/RES/40/34, para. 3 (1985).

It clarified that the right of a victim of sexual harassment to know both the outcome of the investigation and the action taken is embedded in Section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1 and para. 5.5(i) of ST/SGB/2019/8, which explicitly state:

“[T]he affected individual … shall be informed on a strictly confidential basis of the outcome of the matter.”

The purpose of these provisions is clear: to create transparency and accountability, implementing the principle that “sunlight is an antiseptic” to the plague of sexual harassment. However, the UN’s response in this case failed to meet this standard. Instead, the refusal to disclose meaningful details to the victim rendered the process opaque and ineffective, an “inadequate germicide for further sexual harassment.“

Under Staff Rule 10.2(a), “an appropriate disciplinary measure” could range from a written censure to separation from service. A written censure amounts to a mere slap on the wrist, while separation from service effectively ends a career within the international civil service. Thus, knowing precisely where the sanction falls on this spectrum is critical, yet the victim was denied this clarity.

The judge further recalled that it was essential to recall the context in which these policies were issued, particularly ST/SGB/2019/8, during the height of the #MeToo movement. “This was a time of global reckoning, with public outcry over the prevalence of sexual harassment and claims that the UN’s investigative system was failing, often shielding favored individuals. Despite these reforms, the organization’s actions in this case prove that those promises of accountability remain unfulfilled.”

In sum, the Tribunal found that the UN unlawfully denied the victim her right to be informed of the disciplinary sanction imposed on Mr. Sophocleous.

This judgment sets a critical precedent for the rights of victims of sexual harassment in the future. Without the right to know, the UN’s declarations are nothing more than lip service. Victims have the right to know. Sexual predators have no place in the organization—and they should never be protected.

A Perpetrator-Centered System

The UN’s actions in this case revealed a disturbing trend: a perpetrator-centered approach that prioritizes the privacy and careers of offenders over the rights and dignity of victims. The Tribunal ruled that the organization unlawfully denied the victim her right to be informed of the disciplinary action taken, stating:

“Informing a victim of sexual harassment that the Organization has decided to ‘impose an appropriate disciplinary measure’ is opaque, not transparent, and an inadequate germicide for further sexual harassment.”

Instead of protecting victims, the UN shields perpetrators through delayed processes, vague communication, and disproportionately lenient punishments. Even tools like the ClearCheck database, ostensibly designed to prevent re-employment of sexual predators, remain mired in opacity, with no clear accountability for its implementation.

Lip Service to Accountability

The Secretary-General’s annual reports claim that sexual harassment cases are handled with the utmost seriousness. However, this judgment exposes the truth: a justice system that protects the powerful and silences victims.

The Tribunal observed:

“When the Organization refuses to disclose the discipline it imposed, the harasser returns to work, and the Organization later admits that managers frequently receive lighter punishment than others for sexual harassment, even the most gullible person must wonder about the Organization’s professed commitment to ‘zero tolerance.'”

This is not an isolated case. It is emblematic of a broader pattern of hypocrisy, where rhetoric about justice and accountability is undermined by actions that perpetuate impunity.

Member States and Donors Must Demand Accountability for Sexual Harassment Failures in the UN

The UN is called upon to immediately address the following critical questions arising from this damning case:

  1. Why was a senior official found guilty of egregious misconduct allowed to effectively escape meaningful accountability? Despite clear evidence of predatory behavior, the imposed sanction amounted to little more than a career inconvenience—a far cry from the termination mandated by the UN’s so-called zero-tolerance policy.
  2. How will the UN ensure that all victims of sexual harassment are informed of the detailed outcomes of disciplinary processes against their perpetrators? In light of this judgment, transparency is not optional; it is an obligation. The right to know must be enforced consistently and without exception.

Donors and member states must demand clear and immediate answers from the Secretary-General about this case. How does the UN plan to reconcile its public commitment to a zero-tolerance policy with the blatant failure exposed in this judgment? Without transparency, justice, and accountability, what credibility remains for the organization tasked with upholding global human rights?

The media, civil society, and global stakeholders should question how the UN’s leadership plans to address this glaring hypocrisy. To remain silent is to condone a system that protects perpetrators and silences victims. This case must become a turning point, not another example of impunity buried in bureaucratic indifference.

I am writing this not as a distant observer but as someone who has experienced the crushing impact of the UN’s systemic failures firsthand. The Secretary-General and UN leadership must answer—not just to their staff, but to every individual who once trusted this organization to stand for justice. This case is personal for victims, and it should be personal for anyone who still believes in the ideals the UN claims to represent.

#Accountability #UNJustice #SexualHarassment #MeToo #ZeroTolerance #UN #Impunity #JusticeForVictims #UnitedNations

“I mean, how difficult is it not to kiss somebody on the lips? Right?”

Right.

Instinctively, all women will relate to the recent story of Luis Rubiales forcing his now-infamous Kiss on Jenni Hermoso and the kind of behavior that a high-ranking official like Rubiales should not display.

Strangely enough, this question was asked by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Official Spokesman during the daily noon briefings:

“Question: Thanks. Given that gender equality is such an important issue for the Secretary-General, I just wondered if he has any comments on this row that’s engulfing the Spanish football chief, Luis Rubiales, and over his allegedly non-consensual Kiss of the Spanish footballer Jenni Hermoso. Does he have any comments?

Spokesman: I mean, how difficult is it not to kiss somebody on the lips? Right? There is a critical issue of sexism that remain in sports and we hope that the Spanish authorities and the Spanish Government deal with this in a manner that respects the rights of all female athletes.

Question:  Sorry to clarify, so he does see this as a sexual assault?

Spokesman: That is a criminal term. Right? From what we see here, I don’t see any indication that anything was consensual.”

Spoken like a steadfast defender of women’s rights and advocate of accountability to end impunity against sexual predators, harassers, and rapists in the United Nations.

We have the answer since you’ve asked Mr. Spokesperson and Mr. Secretary-General.

“I mean, how difficult is it not to kiss somebody on the lips?” 

Particularly for United Nations Senior Officials.

It seems extremely difficult.

You can start by asking Martina Brostrom, who the United Nations fired in retaliation for having reported the former deputy executive director of UNAIDS who forcibly kissed her in a hotel elevator, groped her, and tried to drag her to his room during a conference in 2015. 

Martina recounted her nightmare to CNN:

“I’m pushed towards the wall, he starts shoving his tongue into my mouth, trying to kiss me. And he is groping my body, including my breasts. The elevator door opens, and he tries to forcefully pull me out of the elevator – drag me towards the corridor of his room.”

So. Mr. Spokesman, it is very difficult for United Nations Senior Officials NOT to kiss their subordinates on the lips.

And when they do so without consent, the United Nations fabricates allegations against their subordinates and fires them to protect those same United Nations Senior Officials.

For instance, in the case of Martina, the United Nations fabricated a case of sexual and financial misconduct against her because she was having a relationship with her now husband and father of her child!

The same UN that turned a blind eye for a decade over UNOPS senior leadership misappropriating over $60 million in questionable business dealings, resulting in massive financial and reputational losses to the Organization.

And yet protecting those sexual predators is always first on the Secretary-General’s agenda.

Martina sent four separate emails directly to the Secretary-General, asking him to intervene in the case. She never received a reply other than a confirmation of receipt.

Immediately after, she was offered a promotion if she withdrew her claim against the senior UN official, but Martina refused. So, she was fired.

The very fact that the former Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDS was so difficult to remove from his role is a reflection of something much bigger, of what all these zero tolerance policies for sexual harassment, abuse, and protection against retaliation policies that the Secertary-General continues to advocate for in the political arena represent nothing but a pleasing façade in a bid to secure the yearly assessed financial contributions of member states.

You can also ask Malayah Harper, who used to run UNAIDS programs in Uganda and Kenya, and who previously told CNN that the former Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDs assaulted her in an almost identical way, a year earlier than Martina, also at a hotel. Those were her words:

“He got into the lift with me, and then kind of lunged forward to – you could call it – kiss me, but I thought a kiss had to be consensual.”

You can also ask a third woman, who, according to CNN, still works in the UN system and wished to remain anonymous, described a very similar incident with the former Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDS.

“He forced himself on me; he stuck his tongue in my mouth, tried to touch me all over, into my blouse.”

Mr. Spokesman and Mr. Secretary-General, it is beyond impossible for senior United Nations officials NOT to kiss staff on their lips, and it is beyond impossible for the Secretary-General to hold those Senior United Nations officials accountable.

So, to answer your question, Mr. Spokesman:

What is undoubtedly easy is the retaliation against those women who dare to report the Kiss.

Your Honour: A Kiss is not a Free Pass for Sex.

As a follow-up to two recent Certioraris blog posts about a UNDT judge adopting a sexist and victim-blaming approach to recent cases of sexual harassment and sexual exploitation in the United Nations, my jurisprudence research led me to an appalling dissenting opinion by the same Judge in yet another judgment in which he obscenely blamed the Victim for a case of sexual assault and rape.

To recap, in his “Boys will be Boys” Judgment, the Judge who holds an Italian nationality considered comments from a male staff member to a female staff member, such as “Your breasts look like mountains….” and “The water jets in the pool could be pleasurable between a woman’s legs….” as “euphoric jokes and quips, “boutades” by an elated person (like a boy on a school trip) with no intention to harm or harass or humiliate.”

In a second Judgment, Makeen, UNDT/2023/071, the Judge considered it normal for a 53-year-old UN married man to have sex with an 18-year-old girl who cleans his house and cooks for him and ordered his reinstatement or in lieu compensation for his termination.

In both Judgments, referring to a 2007 Duke Law Research Paper, I argued that the cultural beliefs and values of the same UNDT Judge were once again crucial factors impacting his final decision and judgment and that the cultural affiliations of different judges and jurors will influence their perceptions of whether sexual harassment occurred.

Most recently, an Italian judge provoked outrage after clearing a school caretaker of sexually assaulting a teenage girl because the grope lasted only “a handful of seconds.” 

Italians expressed their outrage on social media by posting videos of themselves touching intimate body parts alongside the hashtags “palpata breve” (brief grope) and “10 secondi” (10 seconds).

Italian judges have been criticized in the past for similar rulings. In 2017, a judge in Ancona cleared two men of the rape of a 22-year-old Peruvian woman because they said (and the judges agreed) that she was “ugly.” In a famous case from 1999, a man was cleared of rape because the Victim was wearing tight jeans believed to be impossible to remove without her assistance.

The UNDT judge has an array of judgments that all point to sexist cultural beliefs, and in which he seems to consistently want to blame the women for the sexual harassment and violence they endure.

Such victim smearing is commonplace in rape trials in Italy, and the UNDT Judge did not depart from this sexist legal approach in yet another UNDT judgment in which he expressed his dissenting opinion against the majority of the Judges.

The case itself is pretty straightforward, albeit revolting.

A long-term serving UNFPA staff member at the D-1 level sexually assaulted, forced himself, and raped a UN colleague he had met earlier at dinner.

The majority of the Judges upheld the disciplinary sanction of termination, having considered the totality of the evidence before them; chief among them was that irrespective of the fact that the female colleague had kissed the Director, she had not given him explicit consent to have intercourse with him, and she explicitly told him that she had made a mistake and wanted to leave the room, but he would not let her.

The D-1 Director and the female staff had met over dinner during a UN mission. The conversation was friendly. The Director invited his female colleague to continue the conversation. On her way to pick him up, he left his room door open as he stood on his balcony waiting for her. They had a discussion on the balcony, and he kissed her. 

She then realized she made a mistake and wanted to leave.

Her judgment, Her Call, Her Right.

But the Director wouldn’t let her go. She explicitly told him she didn’t want to have sex with him, but he wouldn’t let her leave. The Director attempted to pin her against the wall but was unsuccessful, so instead, he held her in a firearms lift, put her on the bed, and raped her.

The majority of the Judges ruled against the Director, and the termination decision clearly referred to the lack of consent as a decisive factor for sexual assault and rape which had zero tolerance in the United Nations.

The UNDT judgment UNDT/2022/030 featured a 17-page dissenting opinion by the UNDT Judge same author of the “Boys will be Boys” judgment.

The UNDT judge argued why he would have cleared the D-1 Director of any misconduct. He even managed to quote the Applicant’s words in his application to defend him.

In a disturbing quote, the UNDT Judge invoked the Director’s own words in his application by stating that 

“the Complainant’s “friendly disposition towards the Applicant … was exculpatory of him having assaulted her.” 

In other words, the Judge plainly said, if you’re friendly to me, I have the right to rape you!

But, Your Honor:

Image courtesy of boldomatic.com

The Judge then quotes the OIOS investigator to insinuate that a long time had elapsed during which the Director was on top of the Complainant, therefore, questioning how it is possible that the female staff member did not give consent given the lengthy period.

In other words, the Judge was saying that it if was rape, it would have all happened in seconds.

The Judge goes on to state. 

“It is really difficult to recognize that an alleged victim of assault and rape, in a situation showing no sign of threat or violence at all will accept the sexual intercourse because she was “afraid to upset” the perpetrator, or because she had in front of her a person perceived as a “powerful person”. 

With all due respect, your Honour, it must be difficult indeed, first because you’re looking at it from a Man’s perspective and not a Woman’s.

Second, Your Honor, it seems you are also looking at it from a deep-seated sexist perspective embedded in your cultural beliefs, namely that if a woman flirts with a man, he is entitled to have sex with her.

The Judge’s dissenting opinion goes on:

“When the borders of a situation of mutual respect are crossed, indeed, no gentle relationship could be kept, and a reaction by the victim is expected according to “id quod plerumque accidit,” that is what usually happens to ordinary people; indeed, the embarrassment invoked by the Complainant cannot justify the acceptance of sexual advances without any reaction. 

The lack of any reaction by the person who is the object of sexual advances, whatever could be its motivation, cannot be interpreted as a clear dissent to the sexual intercourse. In other terms, the test required by this case is not only to assess if the Complainant wanted the sexual intercourse or not, but also the perception of her behaviour by a reasonable person within a multicultural environment.”

With all due respect, your Honour: ordinary people??? Lack of any reaction? Perception in a multicultural environment??

Are you, in fact, your Honour, insinuating that the Victim is not ordinary and hence is not normal because she froze and did not shout for help??

Are you, in fact, transferring the blame to the Victim because she froze despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that exists why rape and sexual assault victims freeze during the assault and the experts saying that victims are blamed for not fighting attackers despite evidence that rape triggers immobility in victims.

Are you, your Honour, asking the Victim:

Why did you not scream for help?

Why did you not fight back?

In what culture, your Honour, may we ask, a Man has a right to rape a Woman who clearly said No to Sex?

Are you really working for the Administration of Justice in the United Nations with the overall aim of advancing a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, violence; and assault against Women?

The Judge goes on to argue in his dissenting opinion, that the Complainant told the Director she had made a mistake going into his room. She did not want to have sex with him; however, this happened in the very first moments of the meeting and the fact that she did not repeat her dissent statement later on equates to weak resistance or consent! 

Even when the Complainant testified about the physical strength of the Director and his firemen’s lift to fly her on the bed, which the Director conceded to, the dissenting Judge considered this an act that in itself could be subjected to different interpretations… 

No comment.

In his closing arguments, the dissenting Judge goes on to intimate a disgraceful analysis of events that undeniably point out his own cultural beliefs and values and the sexist approach towards female victims of sexual harassment and assault.

“Certainly the expectations that a young staff member – with work-related problems and frustrations – may have placed in a powerful and sly colleague with a high position in the United Nations hierarchy and well connected (running for presidency in his country, friend of the Regional Director and of the former President of the United States of America, Barrack Obama) remained frustrated after she realized – at the end of the intercourse and not before and probably only when the Applicant told her he was married and with his own life – he had purely sexual objectives, she had made a mistake and she had been used as an object. However, this is not sufficient to substantiate an accusation of rape.”

Wow.

Just Wow.

So, the D-1 Director knows Barrack Obama and is running for the presidency in his country. It goes without saying, we will believe the D-1 Director. And she is just a frustrated young female staff member in the United Nations who did not realize she has been used as an object!! Goes without saying, she is just a frustrated female staff member and she is lying!

Yes, dear audience, these are the owns words of a UNDT judge!

Let’s recall here that this was a 17 pages dissenting opinion by the UNDT Judge and that the UNDT judgment ruled in favor of the Complainant. The Director appealed the judgment to UNAT. 

The importance of the case called for a full bench of UNAT Judges.

Thankfully, in Judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1332, UNAT unanimously ruled in favor of the Victim and against the Director finding

“that the evidence established with a high degree of probability that the Appellant engaged in non-consensual sex with the Complainant, amounting to sexual assault”

UNAT further held against the dissenting opinion that it was

“insufficient for the Appellant to rely on “tacit” consent or the absence of repeated expressions of non-consent in these circumstances.

Also, rape and sexual assault do not always include threats of violence or physical restraint nor victims physically fighting back but can occur, as here, where a person in a position of power, trust or authority compels the Complainant to engage in unwanted activity.

However, the Complainant did testify to being physically restrained and overwhelmed after having expressed her lack of consent. This would be a plausible rationale for the Complainant to not struggle and suffer further physical assault in the interaction.

She described that her failure to scream or yell was because she was “in shock”, “ashamed”, and “embarrassed”, as well as cognizant that she was in a “very precarious situation with the Regional Director” that could compromise her job.”

Surprisingly, there was a new division among the UNAT Judges as to whether the name of the Director should remain anonymous. There was once again a dissenting opinion by 3 Judges who refused to protect the perpetrator even though the final judgment remained anonymous.

The dissenting Judges held

“while we acknowledge the desirability of protection of personal privacy, so too must we bring to account in a balancing exercise, the need to deter others, no less senior officials of the United Nations, from insidious and harmful sexual abuse and exploitation. 

For these reasons we would not have found good cause to depart in this case from the UNAT’s practice of naming parties in judgments”

 The name of the UNFPA D-1 Director remains Anonymous to date.

It is no surprise then that a recent 2023 JIU report of UNFPA made the following observations.

“The most concerning findings are those related to misconduct. The overall sense from staff is that senior management does not take appropriate action and simply “shuffles” or “outrides” problems, especially in cases of abuse of authority and sexual harassment.

The number of open investigation cases related to harassment, including sexual harassment, retaliation and misconduct, has been growing year after year, and, the overall sense is that senior management does not take appropriate or timely disciplinary action against perpetrators of misconduct (sometimes the individual is just transferred to another duty station) or action against perpetrators is delayed to the point that the Victim, or the perpetrator, leaves the organization before any formal disciplinary action is taken.

Staff also felt that this behaviour by management was particularly acute when it was related to sexual harassment, abuse or exploitation. “

The dissenting Italian Judge judged a woman because she did not express her dissent twice to the Man who raped her.

In other words, his dissenting opinion boils down to his sexist and discriminatory obiter dictum: if you kissed him, it means you gave him consent. 

The UNDT code of conduct of Judges requires “fairness in the conduct of proceedings and that Judges must not conduct themselves in a manner that is racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory. They must uphold and respect the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” 

Further, the Judges of the UNDT are appointed by the General Assembly following recommendations of the Internal Justice Council and consultation with the Office of Human Resources on the search for suitable candidates for the positions of judges.

May we ask the General Assembly, the Internal Justice Council, and OHR who can hold this UNDT judge in contempt of the UNDT code of conduct for his consistent sexist legal approach against female staff members in the United Nations?

May we further ask these bodies how do they ensure that that they are recruiting the Judges who uphold and respect the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and whom we assume, in turn, advance the Secretary-general’s policy on zero tolerance towards sexual harassment, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and sexual vioence against women?

May we further ask UNAT judges on what grounds they decide that a perpetrator at a D-1 level convicted of a sexual assault that is considered a crime is granted anonymity despite the UNDT and UNAT establishing the misconduct against him?

The Classic One.


What happens when you’re a female staff member, sexually harassed by supervisors who abuse their authority for three years, and Administration does nothing to protect you?


NOTHING.


The Story started in February 2020.


Female staff member.


Sexually harassed by her supervisor.


Submits official complaints of sexual harassment and abuse of authority to OIOS and Conduct and Discipline Unit.


Is immediately placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) by her supervisors.


Is threatened on the same day by the Chief Mission Support Center during a dinner that her PIP would be “dropped” if she withdrew her complaint against her two supervisors.


Unbearable work environment and too much to bear and stay sane.


Goes on Certified Sick Leave.


Submits a request for protection against retaliation to the United Nations Ethics Office.


Is denied protection by the Ethics Office. We are in December 2021.


Extends her sick leave. Work environment is not safe to return to.


Submits a request to review the Ethics Office’s decision before the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel of the United Nations.


Is suddenly reassigned from her duties as Chief of the Unit by her supervisors and replaced by another staff member.


Requests management evaluation of the reassignment decision and reiterates her request for protection from retaliation from her supervisors.


Her first and second supervisors continue to supervise her.


The Alternate Chair of the Ethics Office ruled in her favor with a prima facie case of retaliation and recommended her protection from her supervisors. We are in April 2022.


Despite the Ethics Office prima facie finding, the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy, and Compliance accepted the MEU’s recommendation that her reassignment was lawful and did nothing to reverse the decision or to protect her.


Left to her own protection, she applies to and is selected for a temporary position as Logistics Officer at the P-4 level at the United Nations Regional Service Centre in Entebbe.


Her supervisor (the perpetrator) refuses to release her, stating that her role was crucial.


Together with the First Reporting Officer, they finalize her performance evaluation report. We are in May 2022.


She is still on Certified Sick Leave and too afraid to return to work.


Her contract is suddenly extended for one month only.


She writes back to the Ethics Office, alerting them of the contractual issue.


Two years and a half after she first complained about sexual harassment and abuse of authority against her supervisors, the Chief of HR finally suggested in July 2022 to offer her a placement in a different section with different reporting lines.


She returned to work in July 2022.


A year later, on 9 June 2023 and three years and a half after the Story started, Judgment UNDT/2023/048 Guimaraes was issued.

Let us read one excerpt…


The Tribunal noted

“… with concern that the Administration, notwithstanding such a serious accusation (in particular, that one of sexual harassment by Mr. John) and the zero-tolerance policy it follows in the matter, did nothing to protect the Applicant after her complaint, leaving her instead subjected to the same reporting line, which had at the top the Applicant’s SRO, that is the alleged sexual harasser of the Applicant.

Indeed, both the FRO and SRO, although accused by the Applicant, remained in their positions, and continue to manage the Applicant’s working relationship, assessing her ePAS, deciding to put her on a PIP, and finally deciding her reassignment.”


Let us read a second excerpt.

“The Tribunal stresses the abnormality of a situation where an officer accused of serious misconduct (like indubitably sexual harassment is) can continue exerting powers towards the complainant. While it can be admitted that the accused officer remains in office till the investigation confirm the accusation, from the moment he is aware of the accusations he is in a situation of conflict of interest which imposed on him the obligation of abstention, refraining from any administrative act which involves or can impact, even indirectly, the complainant.

Let us read a third excerpt.

“The Administration, who receives the complaint of sexual harassment, must immediately not only investigate the facts (or close the case, communicating the closure to the complainant), but in any case, pending the case, intervene to prevent the accused from exerting his managerial powers towards the complainant; this obligation is larger than that one of the accused person and starts from an earlier moment, operating even during the period the accused person is not aware of the complaint.

It is clear in the rules that the existence of a conflict of interest undermines the powers of a manager to take decisions.


In the case at hand, the Administration –which had the obligation to ensure that any known conflict of interest could have no room in the management of the work relationship- should have put a remedy to the situation and intervened since the moment the complaint for sexual harassment was filed by the complainant.”

What happened to the perpetrators who committed the sexual harassment and abuse?


Nothing.

What happened to the Administration that failed to protect the staff member and failed to provide the minimum duty of care?


Nothing.

What happened to the USG, who blindly followed MEU’s classic upholding decision?


Nothing.

What happened to the female staff member?


She went on sick leave, humiliated and threatened by a hostile work environment that affected her mental health and well-being. She was scared and vulnerable, had constant fatigue, had chronic headaches, insomnia, self-doubt with a pessimistic approach to her work and life, and was probably scarred for life …

Oh, and by the way, UNDT awarded her 3 months’ net salary at the P-3 level for all this anguish…and suffering...

Guimaraes-undt-2023-048Download

Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in the United Nations – a discerning statement

On the 1st of May 2023, for the second part of the 77th’s resumed General Assembly session, the Secretary-General of the United Nations presented his report on the Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.

One of the Secretary-General’s statements in his report stood out. Stood out. The Secretary-General stated that:

“No allegations could indicate that there are ineffective complaint mechanisms, that these do not exist, that victims do not report allegations because they do not believe they will be protected, or that they believe that no action will be taken.”

The Secretary-General continues by alluding that while the number of allegations may provide insights into trends, the progress of the United Nations, Member States, and partners with regards to SEA must be measured by so many other indicators such as communicating standards, training, vetting, risk management, and mitigation measures … and so on.

Mr. Secretary-General, I beg to differ.

On behalf of thousands of victims and survivors of sexual harassment and exploitation by the United Nations staff and personnel and non-UN personnel, those victims/survivors who willingly chose not to report allegations because they witnessed first-hand the lack of action and the retaliation against their colleagues who dared to do so: 

That is a bold and defiant statement to make before those survivors and the General-Assembly.

Effective reporting mechanisms for SEA do not exist.

Victims are not protected.

Perpetrators are protected.                                    

Retaliation is rampant.

Accountability simply does not exist. 

We know the names of the victims, and we know the names of the perpetrators.

All of them were protected. Many are still working with the United Nations. Under your leadership. 

Fearless. 

Protected. 

Rampant. 

Predators.

You seem to indicate in your report that the number of SEA allegations received is not a good measurement tool and that few or no allegations do not indicate that an adequate prevention programme exists.

However, the United Nations ACABQ reviewing your report begged to differ: 

The ACABQ in its report, specifically underscored again 

“its concern regarding the increased number of allegations and recalled the collective and unanimous position of the General Assembly that one substantiated case of sexual exploitation and abuse is one case too many”

One substantiated case of sexual exploitation and abuse is one case too many indeed.

Therefore, data on allegations matter.

“In 2022 only, 243 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse related to United Nations staff and affiliated personnel were received across the United Nations system, and 291 allegations relating to personnel of implementing partners not under the authority of the United Nations were reported.”

Source: Your Report.

NB: Those allegations belong to those who dared to report them. 

There is no estimated data for persons who have been sexually exploited, abused, or harassed and did not dare to report it.

Switzerland’s statement on the 1st of May before the General Assembly confirms this:

“Firstly, we are deeply concerned about the large number of cases of sexual exploitation and abuse that continue to emerge each year. This indicates that much remains to be done before we achieve a lasting change in culture, behaviour and attitudes in the Organisation. As highlighted by the ACABQ in its report, the implementation of the zero-tolerance policy for inaction requires first and foremost awareness of the applicable standards and prohibitions by all staff and a safe environment for reporting cases of sexual exploitation and abuse. “

Conclusion: Data Matters.

Then you go on in the same SEA report presented to the General Assembly stating that your SEA strategy prioritizes 

“upholding the rights and dignity of victims and ending impunity through reporting and investigations.”

What rights and dignity are you referring to?

In your report, you refer to the success of the “WHO webinars as part of the “No Excuse!” campaign which attracted more than 30,000 participants in 2022, and its training sessions on a “speak-up” culture which were attended by 2,000 personnel”

But a Congolese survivor from the WHO predators begs to differ:

“How many times do I have to speak before (the doctors) at WHO responsible for the sexual abuse are punished?” she asked. “If WHO does not take radical measures, we will conclude that the organization has been made rotten by rapists.”

When the same survivor states that “money will not erase the wounds I have in my heart.” She reported the alleged misconduct to the WHO in 2019, but never received a response.

What end of impunity are you referring to?

When two weeks ago, the WHO  made the below announcement:

 “I am pleased to announce that Mlitzke . . . and Yao . . . have returned to their duties at HQ Geneva,” 

What end of impunity are you referring to?

When “Jeanette, a woman who says she was impregnated by a WHO doctor said she was pressured into having an abortion, which nearly killed her. She said she is waiting for the WHO to punish the doctor responsible for her pregnancy and has had no offers of financial compensation.”

What end of impunity are you referring to?

When the statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China responding to your report on SEA presented to the GA says:

“We call for strengthening efforts towards ensuring that the United Nations will not remain silent or passive in the face of reported incidents as well as protecting and supporting victims of SEA through adopting a victim-centered approach.”

You also reported that to reinforce ongoing system-wide efforts, in September 2022, the position of the Special Coordinator on Improving the United Nations Response to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse was strengthened by revising the terms of the appointment from a when-actually-employed basis to a full-time position at the Under-Secretary-General level. 

But the ACABQ report again begged to differ:

“The Committee notes specifically a lack of clarity as to the standing of the Special Coordinator in the overall sexual exploitation and abuse prevention architecture, including any changes in that regard that may have resulted from the change to a full-time position modality and the shift of funding to the regular budget.”

Anifa and Jeanette are waiting.

So are thousands of women who were raped, beaten, assaulted, harrased and abused.

Not for another report.

For Real Action.

End Impunity.

NOW.

N2304815SEADownload

What does a guilty sexual harasser deserve? According to UNAT: dignity and respect.

In a UNAT judgment issued last week, the Tribunal appallingly held that sexual harassment offenders are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect, just like victims and survivors.


A P-3 staff member of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported sexual harassment by both her first reporting officer (FRO) and her second reporting officer (SRO). The staff member was placed on certified sick leave for two months. Following her return from sick leave, she filed a complaint with OIOS against both of her supervisors and requested to be reassigned to avoid any further interaction and unnecessary contact with her harassers.


After a significant delay, OIOS found the FRO and SRO guilty of sexual harassment, and disciplinary measures were imposed on the FRO and SRO.


Instead of protecting the staff member, UNODC allowed her former SRO to act as an additional supervisor in her performance evaluation report. The staff member’s mental well-being continued to deteriorate due to her regular meeting with one of the offenders due to them working for the same Organization.


The victim thus requested the Administration to provide her with the specific actions taken concerning the FRO and SRO to understand whether the disciplinary actions taken were proportionate to the committed misconduct and whether her rights have been sufficiently protected by the UNODC Administration, including the risk of repeated harm from the perpetrators.


Evidently, the Administration denied her requests.


In her submission to UNAT, the staff member appealed the breach of duty of care by the UNODC towards her, the undue delays in both the investigation and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings against her supervisors, which violated her right as a staff member to be treated with dignity and respect, and to work in an environment free from harassment and abuse to take appropriate action.


The UNODC responded by requesting the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of receivability since the staff member did not submit a request for management evaluation, and the appeal was considered not receivable ratione materiae. Consequently, UNAT decided that the majority of her appeal was not receivable.


The remaining issue was the staff member’s right to be provided with specific information and details about the disciplinary measures imposed on the FRO and SRO. The staff member based herself on Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5, which states, ” The Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management will also inform the aggrieved individual of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken. “

In a bizarre and skewed approach, the UNAT interpreted the preamble of ST/SGB/2008/5, which excerpt read that “all staff members of the Secretariat are treated with dignity and respect,” as intended to protect the sexual harassers’ dignity and privacy.


The Tribunal found that “by requiring the Administration to inform the aggrieved individuals of the action taken with no further details, sec. 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 seeks to strike a balance between the right of an aggrieved individual, the privacy of the subject staff member, and the confidentiality of the process. “

UNAT steered clear from giving an objective interpretation of Section 5.18(c) of ST/SGB/2008/5 (‘to inform the aggrieved individual of the outcome of the investigation and the action taken), most probably to avoid bad blood with the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management.


Strangely, the Judgment goes on to contradict its earlier interpretation by stating:


“It is incidentally lamentable that such unacceptable behaviour as sexual, or any sort of, harassment may still exist in high profile organisations such as UNODC, which is designed to combat drugs and crime, particularly in hierarchical relationships where respect and example should prevail over abuse and harassment. The principle of accountability must be severely reinforced where and when there is a breach of staff and management duties and obligations in this regard. “


UNAT further considered that, harm to the staff member’s mental well-being by the fact that she still meets her offender regularly and has been a witness in an application filed by this person before the UNDT cannot be seen as a direct effect of the contested administrative decision, but rather an indirect consequence of it, therefore not challengeable under the internal justice system.


How can UNAT preach the reinforcement of the principle of accountability in the same judgment that reinforces the principle of protecting the dignity and respect of sexual offenders?

A “Boys will be Boys” Judgment casts doubts about the UNDT’s interpretation of the United Nations’ zero-tolerance policy on sexual harassment and the cost of perpetuating the Boys’Club culture of impunity.

“Your breasts look like mountains….”

“The water jets in the pool could be pleasurable between a woman’s legs….”

Let me show you a picture you’ll find amusing: a picture of a penis on my phone.

These are a few examples of a male #unitednations staff member’s comments and actions toward his female colleagues during a United Nations retreat. 

If you’re reading this and you’re already shocked, don’t be…yet.

In a UNDT/2022/026 judgment issued in 2022 in the above-mentioned case, the Judge considered that:

“the facts under scrutiny cannot be considered severe, as they were made in jest and without the aim of harming or harassing anyone”

and that such 

“acts are to be evaluated in the factual circumstances, where colleagues were having a rest in a pool during a retreat; it seems they were euphoric jokes and quips, “boutades” by an elated person (like a boy in a school trip) with no intention to harm or harass or humiliate.“

As to the charge of the offending picture, the Judge found

“no evidence of any shocking content of the meme and that the meme undisputedly contained only a sexually explicit (but not pornographic or prurient) picture. Showing it was certainly inappropriate, but it was in a framework of humour amongst colleagues in moments of relaxation in the office, without sexual advances and in no targeted way.”

The Judge further considered that

“some mitigating factors must be taken into account, such as the Applicant’s unblemished work record, his admission to certain allegations, the cooperation from the outset of investigation, his apology to one of the victims.”

Finally, the Judge decided that the sanction of termination for misconduct should be replaced by the disciplinary measure of a written censure and that the offender must be paid two years’ salary as compensation for his unlawful termination!

Well, now, our regulatory framework fails to provide sufficient protection and justice for the victims/survivors of #sexualharassment, and the UN justice system is intent on taking it a step further: encouraging perpetrators to continue their rampant sexual harassment.

What could have caused the UN Judge to make such an assessment and to reach such an erroneous decision?

I argue that the cultural beliefs and values of the Judge in the case mentioned above were crucial factors impacting his final decision.

In a 2007 Duke Law Research Paper, Jennifer Zimbroff considered that 

“studies of sexual harassment perception are not intended to answer whether any specific plaintiff’s circumstances satisfy the legal criteria for sexual harassment. 

Rather, they serve to demonstrate the potential differences with which victims, alleged perpetrators, judges, and juries perceive and consider appropriate handling of unwelcome sexualized approaches. Such studies may demonstrate how the cultural affiliations of different judges and jurors will influence their perceptions of whether sexual harassment occurred and, if so, was responded to appropriately.”

As regards the UNDT judgment, the Administration made the correct and timely decision to appeal to UNAT. 

Bolstered by the UNDT Judge’s decision in his case, the perpetrator responding to the Appeal and defending his actions, argued that there were degrees of severity to sexual harassment misconduct: 

“a passing suggestive glance or remark, for example, is not the same offence as a violent sexual assault or even an inappropriate touch, and neither are the examples of misconduct at issue in the instant matter. Accepting rationally that there exists a gradation in sexual harassment offences, it is appropriate that such graded misconduct be met with a gradation of imposed sanction. The Administration’s reliance on a zero-tolerance policy to circumvent this requirement, and sustain this unjust result, should not be countenanced.”

Don’t despair yet…there is some good news. Thankfully, the Secretariat has a two-tiered system of justice. Earlier this week, the UNAT issued its final judgment No. 2023-UNAT-1311 vacating the UNDT judgment in its entirety and upholding the termination decision.

The UNAT held that 

“all individuals are entitled to be free of this kind of puerile behaviour in the work context. Making unwelcome, suggestive, sexual comments or innuendos to colleagues and showing them photographs of genitalia is unbecoming and disregarding of sensibilities, it violates the obligation of an international civil servant to uphold the highest standard of integrity and naturally would undermine professional confidence. Persons of mature character would know this.”

The UNAT sent an unequivocal  reminder of the UN’s zero-tolerance policy concerning sexual harassment and considered that

“the Organisation is entitled and obliged to pursue a severe approach to sexual harassment. The message needs to be sent out clearly that staff members who sexually harass their colleagues normally should expect to lose their employment. “

More righteous and unbiased Judgments, such as this recent one from UNAT, will contribute to steering the Organization’s moral compass in the right direction.