On this page

Investigations: Frequently Asked Questions

The investigative mandate of IOD

An investigation is aimed at gathering and reviewing both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, that is, evidence that, by establishing facts, either substantiates or disproves an allegation and/or contributes to identifying perpetrators. The findings and conclusions of the investigation are determined through an impartial, objective, and independent process of information-gathering and analysis, which are only based on substantiated facts and evidence.

IOD investigates allegations of misconduct and other wrongdoing on the part of WIPO personnel. IOD may also investigate wrongdoing by other persons, parties or entities, deemed to be detrimental to WIPO.

Examples of allegations investigated include but are not limited to:

  • Abuse of authority
  • Abuse of privileges and immunities
  • Conflict of interest
  • Corruption
  • Discrimination
  • Fraud, including procurement and entitlement fraud
  • Harassment, including sexual harassment
  • Retaliation against complainants and those who cooperate with an investigation
  • Sexual exploitation and abuse
  • Violation of WIPO regulations and rules
  • Waste
  • Any other failure to observe the standards of conduct expected of international civil servants

IOD does not investigate allegations that do not constitute misconduct or wrongdoing, but rather indicate managerial issues, work-related conflicts, disagreements, or interpersonal issues.

The failure by WIPO personnel to observe the WIPO Staff Regulations and Rules, the standards of conduct required of an international civil servant or any other obligation of WIPO personnel.

An action or behavior that may violate applicable laws, rules or regulations, and is deemed to be detrimental to WIPO.

Yes, the Director, IOD, enjoys full functional and operational independence from Management and takes advice from the WIPO Independent Advisory Oversight Committee (IAOC).

The Director, IOD and the designated investigators are under an obligation to (i) perform their duties independently from WIPO personnel involved in operational activities and from WIPO personnel liable to be the subject of investigations; and (ii) to be free from improper influence or fear of retaliation.

The Director, IOD, shall report any significant impairment to independence and objectivity, including conflicts of interest, for due consideration of the IAOC. The Director, IOD, shall confirm to the IAOC, at least annually, the organizational independence of IOD.

Yes. Allegations of misconduct against WIPO personnel at the Deputy Director General and Assistant Director General levels shall be reported to the Director, IOD, who shall, at the earliest opportunity, but not later than one month, inform the Director General and the Chair of the Coordination Committee.

Allegations of misconduct against the Director General shall be reported to the Director, IOD, who shall immediately inform the Chairs of the General Assembly and the Coordination Committee and seek the advice of the IAOC on how to proceed.

The IAOC shall advise the Director, IOD, on whether to conduct a preliminary evaluation or arrange for a preliminary evaluation by an independent external investigative entity. Based on the preliminary evaluation results, the IAOC shall provide a recommendation to the Chairs of the General Assembly and the Coordination Committee on whether to request the Director, IOD, to close the case or to refer the matter for investigation to an independent external investigative entity.

Where allegations of misconduct concern the staff or other personnel of IOD, the Director, IOD, shall seek the advice of the IAOC on how to proceed.

Allegations of misconduct against the Director, IOD, shall be reported to the Director General, who shall, at the earliest opportunity, but not later than one month, inform the Chair of the Coordination Committee and seek the advice of the IAOC on how to proceed. The IAOC shall conduct or arrange for a preliminary evaluation. Based on its results, the IAOC shall provide a recommendation to the Director General and the Chair of the Coordination Committee on whether to close the case or refer the matter for investigation to an independent external investigative entity. If a referral is recommended, such a recommendation shall include the proposed Terms of Reference of the investigation and a proposal for a suitable investigative entity. No investigative proceedings into allegations against the Director, IOD, or previous incumbents shall be initiated without the concurrence of the IAOC.

Yes, the Director, IOD, may engage an external entity or investigator to investigate allegations concerning WIPO personnel, other persons, parties or entities.

In selecting a suitable external investigative entity or investigator to carry out the investigative work, IOD will ensure, among others, that the external investigative entity or investigator (a) is duly qualified and experienced to investigate the allegations under review, with special consideration for cases of sexual misconduct; and (b) has no perceived or actual conflict of interest.

The designated external investigators shall observe confidentiality.

Reporting

Yes, WIPO personnel have a duty to report potential wrongdoing in WIPO, provided there is a reasonable cause to suspect that wrongdoing occurred or is about to occur.

An exception to this duty applies to alleged victims of discrimination, harassment, including sexual harassment, abuse of authority, sexual exploitation, and sexual abuse. However, this exception does not extend to WIPO personnel who witness the said misconduct.

Allegations may be brought to the attention of the Director, IOD:

  1. Using the Speakup platform;
  2. In writing, including by email to IOD’s dedicated hotline mailbox;
  3. In person; or
  4. By telephone (+41 (0)22 338 8001).

Complainants reporting alleged misconduct or wrongdoing to IOD should provide as much detail as possible, such as:

  1. Name of the alleged perpetrator;
  2. Date(s), location(s) and description of the alleged misconduct or wrongdoing;
  3. Names of witnesses, if any;
  4. Any other relevant information, including documentary evidence, if available.

Yes, allegations may be submitted to IOD anonymously.

In this case, providing sufficient information concerning the basis of an allegation is particularly important, otherwise, IOD may not be able to pursue the matter further.

No, there is no deadline or time limit for submitting allegations of misconduct or other wrongdoing to IOD. However, the passage of time may affect IOD’s ability to collect relevant information and evidence essential for the investigation.

Unless a complaint is received from anonymous sources outside the SpeakUp platform, an acknowledgment will be sent in writing to the complainant within ten calendar days, including where a report has been made orally. In the latter case, a note to file will be prepared, documenting the substance of the oral complaint, and shall be shared with the complainant to ensure its accuracy.

After receiving a complaint, IOD shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the information received before launching a full investigation.

Yes. If the case is not completed within six months of receiving the report of suspected wrongdoing, the Director, IOD shall notify the complainant in writing of the status of the matter, provided there is a channel of communication with the complainant. In the absence of such notification, the complainant may inform the Director General or the Chair of the Coordination Committee.

Should the Director, IOD, decide not to open a full investigation based on the outcome of the preliminary evaluation, the complainant will be notified in writing, and, if the complainant is also a victim of the alleged misconduct or other wrongdoing, she/he will be informed in general terms of the reasons for the closure of the matter.

When allegations relate to discrimination and/or harassment, the Director, IOD, will submit the preliminary evaluation form or report to the Director General, with a copy to the Director of HRMD.

Yes, information and evidence obtained by IOD during an investigation are subject to an obligation of confidentiality.

Any breach of confidentiality in the context of an investigation may constitute misconduct liable to disciplinary proceedings under the Staff Regulations and Rules.

The Director, IOD, and designated investigators will protect the information gathered during an investigation from unauthorized disclosure. However, IOD is entitled to use such information insofar as it is required for the legitimate needs of the investigation or the Organization. IOD may disclose information to specific individuals if this is necessary to proceed with the investigation, and to a relevant party with a need to know, for example if this is necessary for administrative, disciplinary, or judicial proceedings.

IOD shall keep confidential the identity of the complainant and disclose it on a need-to-know basis only where required by the legitimate needs of the investigation and/or any subsequent proceedings.

No, all persons involved in an IOD investigation shall not communicate to any person any information in connection with an investigation, including the fact itself of an investigation, except to, their legal counsel, if any, the Ombudsperson, the Chief Ethics Officer; or the Staff Counsellor. A person may inform her/his supervisor that she/he will be interviewed by IOD to obtain permission for an absence related to an investigation but may not give any information related to the investigation to her/his supervisor.

Yes. WIPO guarantees the right of all personnel to communicate confidentially with and provide information to IOD without reprisal.

Retaliation against WIPO personnel for having reported alleged misconduct or other wrongdoing or for having cooperated in an IOD investigation constitutes misconduct and may result in disciplinary or other appropriate action against the person responsible.

IOD shall:

  1. Upon consent of the individual making an allegation, inform the Ethics Office of reports received of alleged wrongdoing that IOD identifies as posing a retaliation risk to a member of personnel;
  2. In case the Ethics Office has determined that there is a prima facie case of retaliation, or threat of retaliation, proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Investigation Manual, the Investigation Policy, and the Internal Oversight Charter. IOD will seek to complete its investigation and submit its report within 120 calendar days; and
  3. Issue the final investigation report to the Ethics Office for further determination.

Yes. Individuals who have a reasonable belief that retaliatory action has been or may be taken against them because they cooperated with an oversight activity or made a report of misconduct shall make a complaint in writing to the Ethics Office as soon as possible and in any case no later than six months after the date of the alleged act of retaliation (or the date of the last act of retaliation if a series of such acts is alleged to have occurred) has come to the attention of the individual making the complaint.

Yes, retaliation for reasons other than reporting misconduct or cooperating with an IOD investigation may amount to misconduct, namely abuse of authority, which falls under the investigative mandate of IOD.

No, during the investigative process, the subject of an investigation and other investigative participants are not entitled to a legal representative to act on their behalf.

The investigation

Upon receiving allegations of potential misconduct or other wrongdoing, IOD conducts a preliminary evaluation of the information, to determine whether the allegations fall under IOD’s mandate, are credible, verifiable, material and/or whether other informal means of resolution are available.

Based on the preliminary evaluation, the Director, IOD may decide to close the matter without a full investigation, proceed to initiate a full investigation, defer the investigation in time, or refer the matter for resolution elsewhere in WIPO.

If a full investigation is initiated, the Director, IOD notifies in writing the subject, i.e., the individual whose conduct is under examination for alleged misconduct or other wrongdoing, that they are under investigation. During the full investigation, IOD collects evidence to substantiate or disprove the allegations. The findings are recorded in an investigation report, which may be the basis for disciplinary proceedings.

The purpose of a preliminary evaluation is to determine whether or not:

  1. The alleged behavior, if substantiated, would constitute misconduct or other wrongdoing;
  2. The allegation is material;
  3. The allegation is verifiable;
  4. There is credible information indicating that the alleged misconduct or other wrongdoing has possibly occurred;
  5. More appropriate or less formal means of intervention are available, for example, by line management or HRMD or within the framework of the internal justice system.

During the preliminary evaluation, IOD normally reviews the complaint and any other evidence provided by the complainant, determines the applicable legal standards, seeks further information and evidence from the complainant and other sources, extracts relevant records from WIPO systems and analyses the case to determine whether a full investigation is warranted.

Based on the outcome of the preliminary evaluation, the Director, IOD, may decide to:

  1. Take no further action and close the matter;
  2. Refer the information for resolution elsewhere within WIPO;
  3. Defer further investigation for a specific time period pending further clarification of key facts;
  4. Direct that a full investigation be conducted.

The Director, IOD’s decision is documented.

The outcome of a preliminary evaluation that determines whether the alleged behavior would constitute misconduct or wrongdoing and whether it is material, verifiable and credible will be recorded in a preliminary evaluation report.

When based on the outcome of the preliminary evaluation, the Director, IOD decides to refer the information for resolution elsewhere within WIPO, the outcome of a preliminary evaluation will be recorded in a Preliminary Evaluation Form, which is a short form of a preliminary evaluation report.

When allegations relate to discrimination and/or harassment, the Director, IOD, submits the preliminary evaluation form or report to the Director General, with a copy to the Director of HRMD.

Should the Director, IOD, decide not to open a full investigation based on the outcome of the preliminary evaluation, the complainant will be notified in writing.

Once the preliminary evaluation has been completed and if the Director, IOD, determines that a full investigation is warranted, IOD will carry out investigative actions to establish facts and collect evidence to substantiate or refute the allegations made, identify perpetrators, and establish relevant circumstances, in order to allow the competent authority to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure.

Investigation activities include, witness interviews, document analysis, forensic analysis of electronic data, information gathering from open sources and office searches.

The outcome of a full investigation will be recorded in an investigation report, which will be issued to the relevant competent authority for appropriate action, including, but not limited to, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

The complainant will be informed of the completion of the investigation. If the case is not completed within six months of receipt of the complaint, the Director, IOD, shall notify the complainant in writing of the status of the matter, provided there is a channel of communication with the complainant.

The duration of an investigation may vary significantly, depending on several factors, including:

  • The complexity of the case
  • The seriousness of the allegations
  • The number of subjects and victims involved
  • The extent and nature of evidence available
  • The number and availability of witnesses
  • The number and priority of simultaneous IOD cases

Interviews are aimed at obtaining the recollection of individuals who actually saw an event or have direct or indirect knowledge of anything relevant to the investigation.

Interviews may be conducted in person, via videoconference or any other suitable method and may be audio and/or video recorded.

All investigation participants shall be required to sign an oath of confidentiality prior to their participation in an interview authorized by IOD.

All WIPO personnel are required to cooperate unreservedly with an investigation and to respond completely and truthfully to requests for information.

During the interview, the subject will be provided details of the allegations and shown the evidence in support thereof. They will be offered the opportunity to respond and to provide countervailing evidence.

The subject and the alleged victim of sexual misconduct may be accompanied to their interview by a third party, who will act as an observer. If other interviewees justify a need for the presence of an observer, this may be authorized at the discretion of the Director, IOD.

The observer undertakes to respect the confidentiality of the investigation and shall not be connected to the matter under investigation.

The presence of an observer will not relieve the subject of the obligation to respond personally in the matter under investigation and the observer has no right to respond on behalf of the interviewee or otherwise intervene in the interview process.

Yes, all information created, stored and/or processed using WIPO ICT systems is the property of WIPO, and IOD has the authority to access all ICT resources and data remotely, without first informing the authorized user, in support of duly authorized investigations.

This includes accessing and/or seizing WIPO User’s email account and/or journal, network and/or local file storage, WIPO-issued IT devices (including but not limited to a desktop and/or laptop computer or mobile phone).

Should the Director, IOD, decide to launch a full investigation, the subject will be informed of such access and of the evidence thus obtained.

No, IOD does not have authority to access or seize WIPO personnel’s personal devices.

Yes, all WIPO personnel are required to cooperate unreservedly with an investigation and to respond completely and truthfully to requests for information.

A refusal to cooperate with IOD in the context of its investigative activities, including a refusal to take part in an interview, as well as any display of hostility during an interview will be noted at the time and recorded. Non-cooperation or refusal to take part in an interview may amount to misconduct.

Yes. Although IOD does not have the authority to issue interim measures, at any stage during the investigative process, the Director, IOD, may recommend to the Director, HRMD, interim measures or remedial action to protect WIPO personnel and/or WIPO’s interests.

This may include recommending that the subject of the investigation be suspended from duty where:

  1. There is a risk that the subject could destroy, conceal, or otherwise tamper with evidence, or interfere in any way with the investigation;
  2. There is a possible threat to the security and/or safety of other members of WIPO personnel, and/or to WIPO;
  3. The subject is unable to continue performing her/his functions effectively in view of the on-going investigation and the nature of those functions.

No. IOD does not take disciplinary action. The purpose of an investigation is to ascertain all relevant facts in order to allow the competent authority to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to initiate a disciplinary procedure. Investigative action is aimed at establishing facts and is not a punitive undertaking.

The outcome of a full investigation is recorded in an investigation report, which is issued to the relevant competent authority for appropriate action, including disciplinary action.

Where the subject of the investigation is a staff member, the Director, HRMD, may, based on IOD's investigative findings, initiate disciplinary proceedings against a WIPO Staff member in line with the WIPO Staff Rules and Regulations.