text: and reptatim in the field." Inviewofwhat~Applicantcarrsi~tobean~ive jn@?mmhtionoftheJAB remmadation,he~thatsince itistoolate titakf3co?mxtivemeasurestolmdotfbeharmhehadsuffered,heshcruld~ mceivesuiQblenmetaryampensaticm. TIM I&poMmt is haever of the ViewthatkLehadactedin~~withtkaespiritof~JAB~ti~ for%napologyn and%asofferedtomakeamendsbydisseminatingafully e9cailpatoIy sta-". v. lBeApplicantelatx3rateshisarguments thatthepjuaiaeagainsthim became~YClear~the~ti~failed,~~~stated ~,tocametohisdefence~hisrepltatioaffar~i~and~ persmalcoMuctcamtibequestionedata successionOf~~~ -fran22April1987andexhx3hgforaperiodofnearlyfivenmths. Ihe m of the U.N. was aSIced cm nunwmus oaxsionsquestions reflecti.ngmthe~licant~s amdmtandactivities,andon~occasim anal-skerwasevadedorthe~ wassupposedtobefurni~by knowledgeableauthorities. In fact, furtfhersta-werehardly- made. For example, at a Staff Ccmnittee meetkq on 22 July 1987, the ~~~~,DpI,wasasked:'~was~~valtersdisnissedand t&y was he given SC&I a big payoff?". lb this, the reply was: "No cmmm~'L It happens in corporatioarcj- inprivateandcmwncmqmmtionsw. - 10 - VI. TheApplicanttakesparticularexceptimtotkbe~~- General'sreplyas itdidmtcummt on the word Wkaksed~ and avoided anyfullexplanation. nKzlpplicant~sgrievance WasallthegreateraShe had written as early as 7 June 1987, i.e. severalweeksearlier, inthe fOllowing~totheAssi.stant~,~ Iwanttitakethi.S~~tOthankynUmxst sinoerely for yaur settlesnentofan persmalcmtr~~inbring~abouta awkwa&situatiantheamtinuatimofwhich wasneitkLerinthebf3stirrterests0ftheorganization~ desiredbyrne. Theonly~matteris,asIhavenmtionedto youbefore,sanesortofvindicaticnofmypersomlintqrity andpmfessimal CXXphEeWhi&havebeenCalledinto questimasaresultofthe Emcedlmchosen,and1ackof explanationoffered,bythewkP!Semmry~fm Public Information. Inthisconnexion,Inotethatthe~- Generalwillmeet~ follawing tfLe mm briefirq 0~1 ?hursday, ii June 1987. I?xSpe+Sully~thatthis wmldbeanagpropiate~tyforr&ress. . Withmanythanks forthe- indicated to me in this matter." whic2q7ouhave VII. !Lhus,theApplicantclaimsthattheUnder-mw,instead ofaminqtohisdefence,didinfactincmase his injury. -asthe JN3hasdisalssed thisaspectoftheg@xbl~indetail,andhasfarn?dthat theApplicant~srepxtatimwasnotadequatelypmbcted,arrdtheRespoarderrt hasaa?epbdthatfindi.ng,theTribLmalseesnoneedtocoverthesame ~again,exaepttopointartthatinitsview,~radio~by the~i~Radioabaut30~~1987-whichwasnotbefaretheJAB-did mtaccura~lyreflectwhathappemdatthesepressamfe.mnoes andinany event,didmtinflictanydkmnibleinjurytotheA1Fplicant. VIII. l%ereisaquestimwhether Ux? Applicant, under Staff Fhile 101.6(e)(i), cmldhave umwtakentoclearupthe~andinsinuati~whi&in - 11 - his view th U.N. spcacRsperson#s stateaoents (e.g. 910 aammV) had created. !lbTrihmalacceptsthatthesestatem2ntsa.reswqkible~ severalnreanings,krtnot- ilytheonestheApplicantmightcboseto sive- Inanyevent,hemadenoseriousattempttoseekpermissimtodefend hi.spersmalqutat.imbyapblicstatementofhisown.7bishecould havedaKevenifthe~ti~oftkberightsofastaff~under Staff Rule 101.6(e)(i) might nut have been entirely clear to him. He did IlOt~thiSaaurSe. His@maryhterestattkLetimapparstohave beenthetenmofsettl~forhis~tion. TbeApplicant~smly . fsli2t-Dm 'onthattheTrib.malhasbaenabletotrace, apartf-u=ws=-d--, is in his letter of 7 June 1987, askingthatwharionllJbne,theUnder-MW, WI, dpness v,that"wculdbean appmpriate cpportuni* for redrem". lhisstatemepltdoesnotreflect,in~~~'sview,any~tlrrqeslcy inmspectoftheiqmssionscmatedbythepressconf~ IX. Anycl~mrwthatthePgplioantwaspltin~asituatioPlthathe amldnut -lY expect pem.issionfmtheSecrebq~ to clear uphisgocdnaumisnotcxmvincing. Inthec~oftheApplicant, vigoruusacticmto remveanyunfvrmrable~imleftbythepness cmferencesmi~mthaveappearedeasyorfeasible,htwhatevermightbe hisnroti\Fesfarhisrather~ivea~~,~farhisl~ Of 7 June 1987, relating to an qaxuing press amference, theApplicmtcamot clailnthattb Reqmmk&waslegallycbligedtodonmethanheachAally did. The&spmknt8s~ibilities inthesematters, asd~~~ibedin F&port al standards of czcndwt of the wonal civil service 1954 arenatapplicablesirrcetheyrelateto~~ccriticisnaf a staffnmber . mgarduqassignmntscarriedattfortheOqanization. l3eT!rj.knmalfinds thatintb3eckam&axmtbreisnolegalbasisfaranyfUrther ccmpmtionbecauseof~sta~ madeonnotmadeatpresscmf~ X. Adetailed examinationof all the amgummwputfmbeforethe ~~~thatthe~~cant~~idersthathisseparationf~ servicawas~aboutthmughdeceptim. 'Itaebasisforthisisthatthe - 12 - 
analysis: This text appears to be a formal complaint or appeal related to a staff member's separation from a organization, specifically the United Nations. The text is dense with technical language and references to internal procedures, which suggests that it is a formal document. The content is primarily focused on the staff member's grievance and the organization's response, rather than any specific topic related to the categories listed.