Editing Openai/6923772e-905c-8010-9104-b8d007833c93 (section)

=== ## ===

CAS held:
* UCI may accept anonymous complaints (Art. 30.3 UCI Ethics Code).
* However, the Ethics Commission did not properly justify maintaining anonymity or denying cross-examination.
* Conducting separate hearings without explaining the reasons failed to fully respect due process.

Yet CAS emphasized:
➡ Any defects were cured by the full appeal and evidentiary review before CAS. 11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._

The anonymous complaints remained in the file only as context, not as evidence of misconduct.

==== UCI correctly required an independent interpreter; refusal to accept the Team co-manager as interpreter was justified. ====

==== The UCI decision lacked clarity on: ====
* Which evidence it relied on,
* How it assessed credibility,
* How it applied the legal criteria.

CAS found the decision insufficiently reasoned, but again:
➡ Cured by CAS’s own de novo examination.

==== Because of these procedural shortcomings, CAS decided to set aside procedural costs imposed by UCI (CHF 1,000). 11178_Award_FINAL__for_publ._ ====