Human rights in sport: Reflections on the Paralympic Games

History and development of the Paralympic Games

The origins of the Paralympics can be traced to post-World War II Britain, where a neurologist specialising in spinal cord injuries, Sir Ludwig Guttmann, organised a sports competition at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire, England in 1948. The event was initially a rehabilitation exercise but grew into a significant precursor to the Paralympic movement. The Stoke Mandeville Games ran from 1948 to 1959.³

The first official Paralympics were held in Rome in 1960, aligning with the Summer Olympics. This event marked a critical point in the international recognition of athletes with disabilities, featuring 400 competitors from 23 countries.⁴ The Paralympics have evolved significantly since their inception, reflecting changes in positive societal attitudes in favour of disability inclusivity. Since its official integration with the Olympic movement in 1960, the Paralympics have expanded considerably and enjoyed increased visibility and media coverage. The Paris 2024 Paralympics shattered previous broadcasting records with more hours of live coverage than ever before. All 22 sports were streamed for the first time in history along with streaming on social media platforms, leading to a viewership of more than four billion globally.⁵

Advances in assistive technology have shaped a new era of the Paralympics and played a role in enhancing athlete performance. Examples of cutting-edge assistive technologies at the Paris 2024 Paralympics included: carbon fibre running blades (used by track sprinters with lower limb amputations); event-specific customised wheelchairs; tapping devices in swimming which notify the swimmer when that are approaching the wall; and release braces in archery to allow athletes to draw and release the bowstring more effectively.⁶

Assistive technologies used by athletes in the Paralympics not only help them excel in their respective sports but also inspire innovations that improve mobility for people with disability worldwide to make technology more accessible and affordable. Currently, more than 2.5 billion people worldwide need assistive products, but access remains limited, especially in low-income regions.⁷ The World Health Organization (WHO) and the IPC collaborated at the 2024 Paralympic Games through the ‘Equipped for Equity’ campaign which urged governments to reduce barriers such as high costs and integrate assistive tech into universal health coverage.⁸ Examples of positive initiatives include tax exemptions in countries like Zimbabwe and pre-Paralympic tax reductions in France and Japan.⁹

Human rights framework

The legal framework underpinning human rights in sport stems from international human rights law. Various instruments codify States’ human rights obligations, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These treaties were designed to regulate relationships both between individuals and with the State, as well as setting out the obligations owed by States. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and International Paralympic Committee (IPC) have also adopted human rights provisions in their governing statutes.¹⁰

Australia has ratified several core international human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, ICESCR, and the Convention on Rights of Peoples with Disabilities (CRPD).  While the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) pre-dates the CRPD, many provisions and principles of the CRPD are reflected in the DDA and have influenced subsequent amendments and policy shifts, which promote equality, accessibility, and the rights of people with disability in Australia.

Notably, the host state of the upcoming 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Queensland, has its own statutory human rights frameworks. Relevant legislation in this area includes the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), Disability Services Act 2006 (Qld) and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) was introduced following a state government inquiry in 2016 and increasing public pressure for stronger protection of human rights.¹¹ At present, Queensland and Victoria are the only Australian states to implement standalone human rights legislation.

The Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) aims to protect and promote human rights by embedding human rights considerations into public decision-making. It does this via:

• enshrining 23 human rights, covering civil, political, and economic rights, such as the right to life, freedom of expression, the right to education, and protection from torture and cruel treatment;.
• requiring public entities, including government departments, local councils, and public service providers, to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights. These entities must consider human rights in their policies and procedures;¹² 
• requiring that when new Bills are introduced in Queensland Parliament, they must be accompanied by a ‘Statement of Compatibility’, explaining how the proposed law aligns with or limits the rights protected by the Act;¹³
• allowing individuals to raise human rights complaints to the Queensland Human Rights Commission if they believe a public entity has violated their rights.¹⁴
  
   

In November 2023, the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games Organising Committee released a 20-year legacy strategy document, ‘Elevate 2042’. The Elevate 2042 strategy sets out how the Games ought to fit into the host city and region and not the other way around. The impact of the Games in the decade before and decade after, should align with the future direction of the host city.¹⁵Elevate 2042 has four transformation themes which map on to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This includes sport, health and inclusion; connecting people and places (socially, culturally and economically); a better future for our environment; and creating an economy of the future.¹⁶

Elevate 2042 also addresses human rights considerations for the host city. The legacy foundations of the strategy centre around respecting, advancing and celebrating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples along with advancing accessibility and empowering people with disability. The Brisbane 2032 Organising Committee proposes to work alongside people with diverse disabilities to support the co-design, development and implementation of projects leading up to and following the Games, which support people with disability to realise their ambitions and participate fully in the community.¹⁷

Paralympic System of Classification

Discrimination on the basis of functional ability is at the core of the Paralympic classification system. In order to achieve equity amongst athletes, the IPC is faced with the challenging task of developing and maintaining a system which is inclusive to athletes with various forms of impairments, but equally fair and just amongst the cohort. The classification system was designed with an aim to safeguard fair competition by grouping athletes with similar levels of functional ability across various sports. It is tailored to different types of impairments, including physical, visual, and intellectual disabilities.

Typically, an athlete’s classification is denoted by the first letter of the sport and a number, which corresponds with the level of impairment. Classes are allocated based on the impact the impairment has on the specific sport, rather than the severity of the impairment itself.¹⁸ For example, in swimming, S1 athletes typically have severe coordination challenges in four limbs, no use of their legs, trunk and hands, or use of their shoulders only. In contrast, S10 swimmers characteristically have less severe impairments such as weakness effecting the lower limbs.¹⁹ 

Classes 11 to 13 are reserved for swimmers with vision impairments and number 14 for athletes with an intellectual impairment.²⁰

Tensions within the classification system in balancing human rights

The classification system has been reviewed and amended many times to protect the human rights of athletes and prevent its exploitation. However, despite best efforts, there are examples of the system having been manipulated. For example, one of the most heinous abuses of the classification system occurred at the Sydney 2000 Paralympics where 10 of 12 athletes in the Spanish men’s basketball team who won gold were in fact able-bodied men who posed as having an intellectual disability. This led to athletes with intellectual disabilities being banned from Paralympic competition for the next two Olympic cycles whilst the eligibility and testing protocols were overhauled. ²¹

The last significant update to the IPC Classification Code and its related International Standards took place in 2015.²² That review aimed to improve the transparency, consistency, and integrity of the classification system to avoid disputes. However, since that review, further challenges have come to light. In 2019, André Brasil a 14-time Paralympic medallist, brought proceedings against the IPC regarding a reclassification which resulted in him being ineligible to participate. His claim was made on the basis that the classification system was flawed and did not consider independent medical evidence in support of his impairment.²³ Brasil had been classified as an S10 athlete for over a decade, then a 2018 rule change by World Para Swimming, the 2019 reclassification, rendered him ineligible by a margin of just one point. His condition – polio, which caused one leg to be significantly shorter with no sensation or balance, had remained unchanged for years. At first-instance, the Cologne Regional Court found in favour of the IPC, stating it had the right to change its rules regardless of the consequences for athletes. Brasil appealed that decision to the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal who overturned it and held that the IPC, as a monopolist in the field of competitive Paralympic swimming, had an obligation to grant the athlete a sufficient grace period in order to prepare him for the rule change and his potential ineligibility. The IPC was ordered to pay damages to Brasil. The IPC has since indicated it intends to appeal the Düsseldorf Court decision.²⁴

A further example occurred which shows the potentially difficult decision faced by athletes in response to potential re-classification occurred in early 2020, just prior to the Tokyo Paralympic Games. A decision was made during the wheelchair basketball reclassification process to exclude athletes with pain or hypermobility of joints; whilst amputated lower limbs would remain an ‘eligible’ criterion. Two athletes from Great Britain, who were affected by the mid-cycle rule change, considered amputations to maintain their eligibility. George Bates, diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) following an injury at age 11, had chosen not to have an amputation as a teenager, hoping for an improvement in his condition which never happened.²⁵ Oscar Knight, who similarly had been dealing with CPRS since age nine, said the decision had taken a toll on his mental health and that he was feeling that he was the ‘wrong kind of disabled’.²⁶The frequency of reclassification or changes to classes made during an Olympic cycle can lead to confusion and can effect the eligibility and competitive prospects of athletes.

Where to from here

It is always going to be challenging to balance the right to inclusivity with the need to prevent abuse within the system and protect the rights of legitimate athletes with disabilities. Despite amendments to the standards, the categories can be open to abuses of intentional misrepresentation of disabilities by athletes. For example, at the Tokyo Games in 2021 Vinod Kumar, an Indian athlete was stripped of his discus bronze medal and suspended for two years after officials determined he intentionally misrepresented his disability during a classification assessment and was not truly eligible to participate.²⁷

The IPC has made significant strides in promoting fairness in the Paralympics, but the system still has its challenges. While the Paralympics aim to provide equitable opportunities for athletes with disabilities, challenges around classification, fairness, and discrimination persist. Issues of subjectivity, lack of transparency, and inconsistent classification practices remain the subject of ongoing discussion. 

Pleasingly, the most recent IPC review of the Classification Code began in 2021 and was a multi-year process involving extensive consultations. The review process involved feedback from over 80% of IPC's membership, including athletes, medical professionals, and other stakeholders, to ensure the system evolves to meet the needs of the Paralympic Movement.²⁸ The review has led to a new 2025 IPC Classification Code which proposes to include changes such as verification of an underlying health condition and additional functional assessments.²⁹ The new code is set to be implemented in January 2025 for summer sports and July 2026 for winter sports. The new rules governing classification do not take effect until the lead-up to the 2028 Paralympic Games in Los Angeles. Until then, the 2015 Classification Code will remain in effect.³⁰

We will be closely monitoring human rights and sporting organisations’ reception to the new code and disability classification system, as we edge closer to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. 

At Norton Rose Fulbright, we have a specific pro bono strategy. We focus on providing legal support to projects which protect international human rights, including those which promote human rights through sport and assisting individuals living with disability. Overlaying this is our focus on pro bono strategic litigation which seeks to deliver wide-reaching positive social change; law reform and policy work, designed to bring about systemic change; and technologies and innovation to maximise access to justice. You can read more about our pro bono practice here. If you have an issue relating to human rights and sport which you would like to discuss, please reach out to us.