̽����ѡ

Considering that the sanctioning decision relied heavily on the finding that the Applicant had had five times over the limit established by the SOP from 2012, the interpretation of the reading of the breathalyser remained an issue. In this respect, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence was clear and convincing. The Respondent rejected an explanation offered by the Military Police officer in charge of administering blood tests that the breathalyzer had recalculated the contents of alcohol found in the exhaled breath (BrAC) to relative alcohol contents in blood (BAC) and displayed the latter. The Respondent did not attempt to inquire any further to clarify at the source the apparent contradiction in the information obtained, i.e., that if the numerical result were to be related to units expressed as mg/100ml in blood (BAC), it would be beyond the range demonstrable by the breathalyser moreover, that BAC of above 0.45 typically results in death. Had the Applicant indeed exhibited such high level of intoxication, he would not have been easily discharged from the hospital and he would not have seemed “ok” and could normally converse and interact with Mr. Hakizimana. Also, other persons who had seen the Applicant would have likely noticed more symptoms than the smell of alcohol. The available account of the Applicant’s physical condition, his admission to having had three to four vodka based cocktails and the passage of time between the alcohol consumption and the testing, a more plausible explanation seems to be that the results pertained to 1.05 promille, an equivalent of 0.105 mg/100ml (BAC). This level of alcohol would also be consistent with the impairment of motor coordination and loss of good judgment, impairment of vision and reaction time, leading to the accident, as well as with the fact that all persons interacting with the Applicant after his accident could smell that he had been consuming alcohol. The zero-alcohol standard did not allow driving after consuming any unit of alcohol. Driving after consuming several vodka-based cocktails was an obvious violation of either standard. As such, the Tribunal had no doubts that the Applicant’s act amounted to misconduct. The Applicant disregarded the formal rules as well as the common-sense safety considerations. He rejected available alternatives, such as availing himself of the bus provided, asking a colleague for a ride or, ultimately, walking down to the meeting point with his son at Naquora Old Camp. The argument that he did not want to abandon the car out of concern for the United Nations property is untenable rather, this conduct shows that he was acting for his own convenience. On the other hand, it is undisputed and credible that the Applicant had no intention of driving the United Nations car anywhere beyond the gate of the Naquora Old Camp. As such, his misconduct was to take place for a very short time, exclusively on an internal road, inaccessible by the public and in the conditions of low traffic after working hours on a Friday afternoon. The latter circumstances also mitigate the objective element of the misconduct, consisting in endangering the lives of others, the United Nations property and the Organization’s reputation. As regards the Organization’s reputation, the Tribunal recalled that the accident took place in the United Nations compound, not involving members of the local population nor any greater number of United Nations personnel, the actual damage was contained. Drunk driving must be seriously repressed and that general deterrence is an important goal in disciplinary regime. However, absent a clear written pronouncement on the same, any violation of a zero-alcohol standard should not result in separation in a situation – which goes to the question of the Respondent’s consistency - directly in the wake of the previous, far more tolerant Organization’s policy.