I have voted for the Advisory Opinion and have no reservations about the answers given by the Court to the questions posed by IFAD. Far from the ILOAT having exceeded its jurisdiction, I do not see how it could have arrived at any decision other than that Ms Saez García was an official of IFAD and that the actions of which she complained were attributable to IFAD. I agree with the conclusion in the Advisory Opinion that the Global Mechanism does not have international legal personality and, in particular, lacks the power to conclude a contract of employment. However, even had I been persuaded that the Global Mechanism could have employed Ms Saez García, I have no doubt that it was IFAD which did in fact employ her. Since the successive offers of employment she received came from IFAD, expressly offered her an appointment with IFAD, stipulated that her appointment was to be on the terms specified in IFAD’s personnel manual (in its successive versions) and was terminable by notice from or to IFAD, I find it more than a little surprising that IFAD has tried to argue that she was not its employee. Such an argument is plainly unsustainable. It also seems to me to be beyond serious argument that Ms Saez García’s complaint concerned matters falling within the jurisdiction of ILOAT. I am therefore entirely in agreement with the answers which the Court has given to Questions I and IX and with the decision that there is no need for any further answer to Questions II to VIII.