Rule 63.6, Hearings: Taking Evidence and
Finding Facts
Rule 70.1, Appeals; Confirmation or Correction of
Decisions; Rule Interpretations
Rule F5, Inadequate Facts; Reopening
Attempting to distinguish between facts and conclusions in a protest committee's
findings is sometimes unsatisfactory because findings may be based partially
on fact and partially on a conclusion. A national authority can change a protest
committee’s decision and any other findings that involve reasoning or
judgment, but not its findings of fact. A national authority may derive additional
facts by logical deduction. Neither written facts nor diagrammed facts take
precedence over the other. Protest committees must resolve conflicts between
facts when so required by a national authority.
Question 1
What criteria determine whether a finding in a protest committee's decision
is subject to change on appeal? Are the criteria based on whether the finding
is a ‘fact’ or a ‘conclusion’, whether it incorporates
an interpretation of a rule, or something else?
Answer 1
The distinction between ‘fact’ and ‘conclusion’ does
not provide a satisfactory criterion because the two concepts can overlap. In
the context of rule 63.6 and other rules using the term, a ‘fact’
is an action or condition that a protest committee ‘finds’ occurred
or existed. A ‘conclusion’ is derived by reasoning from something
else, and can be purely factual. For example, if the facts are that there were
three classes in a race and five boats in each class, it is both a conclusion
and a fact that there were 15 boats in the race. A conclusion can also be partially
non-factual, as when a judgment is made that includes non-factual elements.
An example is the statement ‘Boat A displayed her flag at the first reasonable
opportunity after the incident’, which is based on a combination of the
facts about an incident and an interpretation of the phrase ‘first reasonable
opportunity’ in rule 61.1(a).
A finding that is an interpretation of a rule is clearly subject to change by
a national authority, but other findings that involve reasoning or judgment
are equally subject to change. For example, a protest committee might state
that ‘The wind velocity of 15 knots was too high for the boats to be able
to race in safety’. This statement is an opinion or judgment but not an
interpretation of the rules.
The criterion for determining whether a protest committee's finding is subject
to change on appeal is therefore only that the finding is not exclusively factual
in nature. Rule 70.1 permits the appeal of a protest committee's ‘decision
or its procedures, but not the facts found.’ However, it does not prohibit
the appeal of other findings or judgments made by the protest committee. Similarly,
rule F5 requires a national authority to accept a protest committee's findings
of fact, but does not require the acceptance of other findings. The effect of
both rules is that a national authority can change any finding by a protest
committee except a finding of fact.
Question 2
May a national authority derive additional facts by drawing conclusions from
the protest committee's written facts or its diagram?
Answer 2
Yes. The national authority may apply logic to derive additional facts from
either source.
Question 3
What is the status of a diagram prepared or endorsed by a protest committee
as required by rule F2.2(b)?
Answer 3
Both the diagram and the written facts are facts found by the protest committee.
Neither takes precedence over the other.
Question 4
When facts conflict with each other, such as a conflict between the diagram
and the written facts, is a national authority required to accept all of them?
How are conflicts to be resolved?
Answer 4
The national authority cannot logically accept conflicting facts. Rule F5 gives
a national authority the authority to require the protest committee to provide
revised or additional facts that resolve the conflict.
USSA 2003/85