In this regard, Counsel for the Respondent invited the Court to apply the above Rules and Regulations as well as the aforementioned authorities. With due respect to Counsel, we find that the said Rules and Regulations are not best practices applicable to any international organizations. As for the authorities, we did not find them relevant to this Claim. Finally, Counsel for the Respondent invited the Court to answer Issue No.2 in the negative. VIII. DECISION ON THE ISSUE NO.2 We have seen elsewhere above that both Parties are in full agreement that the Staff Rules and Regulations (2006), Council directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions will apply mutatis mutandis to this instant Claim. In this regard and for a gradual analysis of a set of facts within the sub-judice Claim, it is important to examine this case from the first step related to the job advertisement to the last phase of signing the employment contract by the Claimant. Firstly, it cannot be gainsaid by any Party to this Claim that either the Statement of Claim filed before this Court on 27 th September, 2012 or the Respondent’s Statement of defense to the Claim lodged in the Court on 18th 0ctober, 2012 contain an identical job advertisement to wit: [REF: EAC/HR/07-08, 028] – PROJECT ACCOUNTANT advertisement would (1 have POST). Nothing suggested that in the this job Project Accountant’s position was governed by the RISP agreement. CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012 Page 15