The case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics centered on the exclusion of three participants by the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of Cape Verde. The panel, comprising Michael Beloff, Christopher Campbell, and Mingzhong Su, examined the procedural fairness of withdrawing the claimants' accreditation. The panel stressed that individuals facing the loss of accreditation must be notified of the allegations against them and given an opportunity to respond, in accordance with principles of natural justice and due process. Accreditation grants significant rights and privileges, and its abrupt withdrawal can have severe consequences, such as loss of access to accommodations and personal belongings.
The case followed an earlier decision (Award 002) where the panel ruled the NOC's initial withdrawal of accreditation was invalid due to the lack of consent from the IOC Executive Board. While the NOC later obtained this consent, curing the procedural defect, the panel then assessed whether the withdrawal could be challenged on other grounds, particularly the failure to notify the claimants or allow them to present their case. The panel found that neither the NOC nor the IOC had informed the claimants of the proposed withdrawal or given them a chance to respond, violating basic fairness principles.
The proceedings were governed by the CAS ad hoc Rules and the Swiss Private International Law Act, with jurisdiction derived from Rule 74 of the Olympic Charter, which grants the CAS authority to resolve disputes during the Games. The panel had full power to review facts and apply the Olympic Charter, relevant regulations, and general legal principles. Key provisions of the Olympic Charter included Rule 31, granting NOCs exclusive authority to represent their countries, and Rule 50, allowing the IOC Executive Board to withdraw accreditation for violations. The panel emphasized that while NOCs have discretion in selecting athletes, decisions affecting accreditation must adhere to due process.
The panel concluded that the NOC's failure to notify the claimants or allow them to respond rendered the withdrawal procedurally unfair. While it did not rule on the merits of the NOC's decision, it underscored the importance of basic fairness in disciplinary processes, aligning with the Olympic Charter's emphasis on fair play. The panel suggested that both the NOC and the IOC should ensure compliance with due process, with the NOC providing an opportunity to respond and the IOC verifying this before granting consent for withdrawal.
The document further discusses the principles of due process, highlighting the need to avoid bias, provide clear notifications, act within legal boundaries, and ensure the right to be heard. The panel considered whether it could remedy procedural defects by conducting its own hearing but concluded its role was to review the decision-maker's actions rather than to become the decision-maker itself. It acknowledged that in rare cases, a decision might stand despite procedural flaws if the outcome would have been the same, but such instances are exceptional. The panel noted the claimants disputed the allegations, making it impossible to overlook procedural shortcomings.
The panel avoided forming a definitive opinion on the merits, stating that if the allegations of indiscipline were proven, withdrawing accreditation might be justified. However, it had not heard sufficient arguments to make a conclusive judgment. The panel emphasized respecting the NOC's authority and the Olympic Spirit, which promotes mutual understanding and friendship. It expressed regret over the contentious nature of the dispute, urging both parties to reflect on the values of the Olympic Games during the remaining days of the event. The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and upholding the Olympic Spirit amid disputes.