text: (less the hourly wages paid to her during 1987), as well as appropriate contributions on her behalf and on behalf of the UNICEF to the Pension Fund, retroactive from 1 January 1987 until the implementation of the judgement on this case. (11)To award the Applicant appropriate and adequate compensation for considerable financial loss and severe moral injuries suffered by her as a direct consequence of the aforesaid arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and prejudicial decisions taken by UNICEF and by the Respondent, causing thereby a 'miscarriage of justice'. (12)To hold oral proceedings in order to hear the testimony of the Applicant and of the witnesses concerned." Whereas, on 21 July 1989, the Applicant informed the Executive Secretary of the Tribunal that she was amending her pleas in part as follows: "(12)To hold oral proceedings in order to hear the testimony of the Applicant and of the witnesses concerned, particularly the following: ...- 3 - (13)To award the Applicant as legal costs a sum of $3,000.00." Whereas the Respondent filed his answer on 29 November 1989; Whereas the Applicant filed written observations on 31 January 1990; Whereas, on 19 March 1990, the President of the Tribunal ruled that no oral proceedings would be held in the case; Whereas, on 27 April 1990, the Tribunal put questions to the Respondent and on 3 May 1990, he provided answers thereto; Whereas, on 14 May 1990, the Applicant submitted comments on the answer provided by the Respondent; Whereas the facts in the case are as follows: The Applicant was recruited by UNICEF on 3 January 1978, as Personal Assistant to the Special Representative for the International Year of the Child. She was initially offered a two year and twenty-nine day fixed-term appointment at the P-3 level, "limited to service with the International Year of the Child
analysis: The text appears to be related to a court case involving a former employee of UNICEF, focusing on compensation for financial loss and moral injuries suffered due to alleged arbitrary and discriminatory decisions. The case does not seem to involve economic development, natural resources, or environmental issues. The context of the case is more related to employment and labor rights.