The full award can be downloaded here. Below are some quotations about the Merits from the Award.
Parties: The Islamic Republic of Iran Judo Federation (the "Appellant" or the "IRIJF") is the governing body of judo in the Islamic Republic of lran ("IRI"), which in turn is affiliated to the International Judo Federation.
The International Judo Federation (the "Respondent" or the "IJF") is the governing body of judo worldwide.
Merits of the case: Did the Appellant instruct the Athlete not to compete or to deliberately lose contests at the Tokyo World Championships Senior?
Paragraph 94: In light of the above considerations, the Panel holds that it is established that the Appellant instructed the Athlete to deliberately lose his contests at the 2019 Tokyo Judo World Championships in order to avoid competing against an Israeli athlete at a later stage.
Did the Appellant breach the principle of political neutrality and non discrimination under the IJF Statutes and Other Related Rules?
Paragraph 103: In light of the above-mentioned provisions, the Panel confirms that, as evidenced under the Olympic Charter, the principle of political neutrality and the principle of nondiscrimination represent Fundamental Principles of Olympism as well as one of the objectives of the IOC. As a member of the Olympic Movement, the IJF commits to promote the ideals and objectives of the IOC and to consider the adherence to such fundamental principles in particular the principle of political neutrality and the principle of non-discrimination as essential. As a result, the IJF imposes upon its Member National Federations - as a precondition to be a Member - to confirm that they adhere to those principles by imposing that they comply with the IJF Statutes and that their statutes are themselves in compliance with the IJF Statutes and the Fundamental Principles of the Olympism, as detailed in the Olympic Charter. The Panel therefore holds that the Appellant is undoubtedly bound by the principle of political neutrality as well as the principle of non-discrimination as provided for under the Fundamental Principles of Olympism in the Olympic Charter and the IJF Statutes.
Paragraph 107: The Panel therefore concludes that by instructing the Athlete to deliberately lose his contests at the 2019 Judo World Championship Senior, the Appellant breached the principles of political neutrality and non-discrimination as provided under the IJF Statutes and the Olympic Charter.
Whether the IJF violated the principle of fairness as provided under the IJF Statutes and other rules of the IJF Code of Ethics.
Paragraph 111: “the Appellant's claim with respect to the behaviour of the IJF officials in the present matter is not supported by any evidence; in the Panel's view, the behaviour of the IJF officials reflects respect of the principle of political neutrality rather than unfairness.”
Does the sanction imposed in the Suspension Decision have the necessary legal basis and proportionality?
Paragraph 124: Indeed, Article 12 of the IJF Disciplinary Code provides for a list of applicable sanctions, as follows:
"The disciplinary sanctions should be chosen from the measures below:
1) Sports penalties such as downgrade, disqualification, withdrawal of a medal or title.
2) Disciplinary sanctions chosen from the following measures:
a) Warning
b) Reprimand
c) Suspension from a competition or duties
d) Fines, though they cannot exceed the fines set for the contraventions under Swiss law.
e) Provisional or definitive withdrawal of the status of the IJF member and all its affiliated components.
f) Expulsion
3) Ineligibility to the governing bodies for a specified period
Paragraph 125: In the Panel's view, in accordance with the principle nulla poena sine lege, the IJF Disciplinary Commission is bound by this exhaustive list of possible sanctions. While the IJF Disciplinary Commission enjoys a certain discretion in order to adjust the sanction to the specificities of a particular case, for instance by choosing the appropriate sanction among the list of possible sanctions or to qualify the alleged violation as a "serious breach" or a "gross negligence" or to adjust the sanction where the rules leaves sufficient room for such adjustment, the principle of nulla poena sine lege prevents the IJF Disciplinary Committee to impose a sanction that is not provided for in the list of possible sanctions or to impose to a specified sanction different modalities than those expressly provided for in the text.
Paragraph 128: In light of the above considerations, the Panel holds that the Suspension Decision lacks the necessary legal basis. As a result, the Panel finds that the Suspension Decision must be annulled. Based on Article R57 of the CAS Code, the Panel holds that the case shall be referred back to the IJF Disciplinary Commission, for its appropriate sanction(s), taking into account all relevant circumstances - inter alia - the suspension already imposed on the Appellant.
Does the sanction imposed in the Suspension Decision constitute an illegal violation of the Appellant's personality rights?
Paragraph 133: In the present matter, as was confirmed in the present award, in the view of the Panel, the Appellant committed a serious breach of the IJF Principles, for which a sanction must be imposed. Also, the seriousness of the present matter is beyond doubt, as the rules that were infringed by the Appellant constitute Fundamental Principles of Olympism. Finally, the Panel notes that the Appellant is not prevented from any judo activity: it can still organise competitions and other events at the national and local level and develop judo within the IRI. As a result, the Panel finds that there is no violation of the Appellant's personality rights.
The Appellant's claim for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the Appealed Decisions
Paragraph 138: In the present matter, the Panel has already concluded that the Appellant committed a serious breach of the IJF Principles and Fundamental Principles of Olympism. As a result, the IJF Executive Commission was entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings before the IJF Disciplinary Commission. It follows form such conclusion that the IJF Disciplinary Commission was entitled to adopt provisional measures for the duration of the disciplinary procedure. The Panel therefore finds that the Provisional Suspension Decision is legally valid and therefore does not constitute a wrongful act. As a result, the Panel finds that the Appellant's claim for compensation as to the Provisional Suspension Decision shall be dismissed.
COSTS
Paragraph 141: Furthermore, pursuant to article R65 .3 of the CAS Code, having taken into account the outcome of the arbitration, the conduct of the Parties in the arbitration, and the respective financial resources, the Panel decides that the Appellant shall pay a contribution in the amount of CHF 5'000 towards the Respondent's legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.