Abstract

This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.

Caster Semenya began her legal claim against the International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF) regarding the discriminatory effect of the the Female Eligibility Regulations in Athletics (the ‘DSD Regulations’) in June 2018. Since then seven years have passed, the IAAF has change its name to World Athletics and arguments have been made in front of  a  Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) arbitration panel, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (SFSC) and twice before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

On July 10th 2025, a full two years after the first decision by the ECtHR had found Switzerland in breach of its positive obligations regarding the protection of Caster Semenya's human rights, the Grand Chamber handed down the final judgment in the lengthy legal saga. The interim has seen a proliferation in regulations restricting the ability of athletes with sexual variations and transgender athletes from competing. In upholding the finding that Switzerland had failed in its obligations to protect Caster Semenya's human rights, the Grand Chamber appears to have recognised that the status quo regarding how the sporting justice system deals with human rights claims has to change. Moroever, the decision seems to recognise that the peculiar context of sports governance and sports arbitration requires more careful scrutiny of the decisions of sports governing bodies.  This intervention provides an initial analysis of the Grand Chamber decision and questions whether the majority judgment provides sufficient clarity to ensure that such change will happen. 

Keywords

Human Rights, sex variations, sport, fair competition, inclusion, safeguards, sport, proportionality, inclusion, sex variations, intersex, fair competition, safeguards