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