The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a decision on November 19, 2020, in the case between Yves Jean-Bart, the president of the Haitian Football Federation (FHF), and FIFA. The case stemmed from serious allegations of systematic rape and sexual abuse within the FHF, particularly at the National Technical Center in Croix-des-Bouquets, Haiti. These allegations, first reported in April 2020, prompted investigations by Haitian authorities and FIFA’s Ethics Committee. FIFA imposed a provisional 90-day suspension on Jean-Bart on May 25, 2020, under Article 84 of FIFA’s Code of Ethics (CEF), citing prima facie evidence of violations. The suspension was later extended for another 90 days on August 19, 2020, under Article 85 of the CEF, which allows for provisional measures in exceptional circumstances. Jean-Bart appealed this extension to the CAS, arguing that FIFA had not met the legal burden of proof and that the extension violated principles of fairness and due process.
The CAS panel, composed of Jacques Radoux, Gérald Simon, and Benoît Pasquier, addressed several key legal issues. It clarified that the burden of proof in disciplinary cases is governed by FIFA’s rules and Swiss law, with each party required to substantiate their claims with specific evidence. The panel also ruled that decisions by non-judicial bodies like FIFA’s Ethics Committee do not carry the legal principle of res judicata, meaning they are not binding in the same way as court judgments. Regarding the provisional suspension, the CAS emphasized that such measures under Article 84 CEF require prima facie evidence of serious misconduct and a justified delay in reaching a final decision. Factors like the gravity of the allegations, the complexity of investigations, and the accused’s position of authority were deemed relevant. The extension under Article 85 CEF was found to require "exceptional circumstances," which the panel interpreted restrictively.
The CAS upheld FIFA’s decision, noting the severity of the allegations, the need for thorough investigations, and Jean-Bart’s influential role, which could obstruct proceedings. The case arose from multiple reports, including investigations by Haitian human rights organizations and media, which alleged Jean-Bart’s involvement in coercing female players into sexual relationships. Despite Jean-Bart’s denial and counter-complaints for defamation, the CAS found FIFA’s provisional measures justified. The decision reinforced FIFA’s authority to impose interim sanctions in serious cases while underscoring the need for proportionality and respect for due process. The ruling also highlighted the challenges of handling such cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, which complicated investigations. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Jean-Bart’s appeal, maintaining the extended suspension pending FIFA’s final decision.
Jean-Bart argued that FIFA’s decision violated the presumption of innocence and lacked substantial evidence, relying on unverified allegations from third parties like The Guardian, Human Rights Watch, and FIFPRO. He claimed that no victims had been identified or interviewed and questioned the credibility of the journalists involved. FIFA, however, maintained that the provisional measures were necessary given the gravity of the allegations and the exceptional circumstances, including the pandemic. The organization argued that the Ethics Committee had prima facie evidence of serious violations and that the measures were essential to prevent interference with the investigation. The CAS panel concluded that FIFA had met the legal thresholds for both imposing and prolonging the provisional measures, ensuring the integrity of the disciplinary process while safeguarding potential victims. The ruling underscores the importance of provisional measures in cases involving serious ethical violations, particularly where delays in final adjudication are unavoidable.