FI­FA have re­leased the fol­low­ing Q&A de­tail­ing some key is­sues sur­round­ing vice pres­i­dent Jack Warn­er's res­ig­na­tion.

Q. How was Mr Warn­er's res­ig­na­tion no­ti­fied to FI­FA?

A. Through a let­ter to the FI­FA ethics com­mit­tee.

Q. Is Mr Warn­er's res­ig­na­tion with im­me­di­ate ef­fect?

A. Yes

Q. How does the res­ig­na­tion af­fect FI­FA and CON­CA­CAF? What will be the pro­ce­dure to re­place Mr Warn­er on the FI­FA ex­ec­u­tive com­mit­tee?

A. Please see ar­ti­cle 30, para­graph sev­en of the FI­FA statutes: "Any mem­ber of the ex­ec­u­tive com­mit­tee who no longer ex­er­cis­es his of­fi­cial func­tion shall be im­me­di­ate­ly re­placed by the con­fed­er­a­tion or as­so­ci­a­tions which ap­point­ed him for the re­main­ing pe­ri­od of of­fice."

For CON­CA­CAF mat­ters, please con­tact CON­CA­CAF.

Q. Does Mr Warn­er's res­ig­na­tion mean he won't now be in­ves­ti­gat­ed by the FI­FA ethics com­mit­tee?

A. He will be in­ves­ti­gat­ed as a wit­ness but not as an ac­cused par­ty. He has of­fered his sup­port to the ethics com­mit­tee in their con­tin­ued in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

Q. Please could you ex­pand on the rea­son(s) for the FI­FA ethics com­mit­tee pro­ce­dures against Jack Warn­er be­ing dropped?

A. Please see ar­ti­cle one of the FI­FA code of ethics which says "this code ap­plies to all of­fi­cials". Ac­cord­ing to Swiss as­so­ci­a­tion law, FI­FA on­ly has ju­ris­dic­tion on its af­fil­i­at­ed mem­bers. If a per­son leaves or re­signs from an as­so­ci­a­tion, FI­FA has no ju­ris­dic­tion on that per­son any­more. Hence the ethics com­mit­tee had legal­ly no oth­er op­tion than to close the pro­ceed­ings. How­ev­er, should that per­son come back to foot­ball, the in­ves­ti­ga­tion would be au­to­mat­i­cal­ly re-opened.

Q. Will FI­FA ex­am­ine Mr Warn­er's role in the af­fair, if as he says, he in­tends to con­tin­ue to help FI­FA with its in­quiries?

A. Yes.

Q. Has he been of­fered some kind of im­mu­ni­ty?

A. No.

Q. Could you al­so con­firm whether any of the CFU coun­tries could still face dis­ci­pli­nary ac­tion as a re­sult of the FI­FA ethics com­mit­tee in­quiry or whether that in­quiry was just con­nect­ed to the four peo­ple who were named as be­ing un­der in­ves­ti­ga­tion?

A. Please note that the cur­rent in­ves­ti­ga­tion launched by the FI­FA ethics com­mit­tee is still on­go­ing. Should any vi­o­la­tion of the FI­FA code of ethics be es­tab­lished, ap­pro­pri­ate de­ci­sions would then be tak­en.

Q. What's the sta­tus of [sus­pend­ed AFC pres­i­dent Mo­hammed] Bin Ham­mam's ap­peal re­quest?

A. Mr Bin Ham­mam's ap­peal against the pro­vi­sion­al ban has been re­ceived. The case will be sub­mit­ted to the FI­FA ap­peal com­mit­tee in due course.

Q. On May 29, the FI­FA ethics com­mit­tee stat­ed that Mr Mo­hammed Bin Ham­mam and Mr Jack Warn­er would be ini­tial­ly sus­pend­ed for 30 days. Will the in­ves­ti­ga­tion be ex­tend­ed, and for how long?

A. We al­so in­formed at that time that the pro­vi­sion­al sus­pen­sion could be ex­tend­ed for an­oth­er 20-day pe­ri­od.

Q. Are the in­ves­ti­ga­tions com­plet­ed in the case of Mr Bin Ham­mam and Mr Warn­er?

A. Please note that the cur­rent in­ves­ti­ga­tion launched by the FI­FA ethics com­mit­tee is still on­go­ing and the pro­vi­sion­al sus­pen­sion of Mr Bin Ham­mam is still in place. We can­not spec­u­late on the out­come of the main pro­ce­dures.

How­ev­er, as men­tioned in to­day's FI­FA me­dia re­lease: "As a con­se­quence of Mr Warn­er's self-de­ter­mined res­ig­na­tion, all ethics com­mit­tee pro­ce­dures against him have been closed and the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence is main­tained." How­ev­er, Mr Warn­er will be heard as a wit­ness.

Q. What does "the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence is main­tained" mean?

A. If a per­son was not found guilty and such a de­ci­sion be­came fi­nal and bind­ing, the pre­sump­tion of in­no­cence is main­tained. This is a ba­sic prin­ci­ple in law.

Q. Have you re­ceived the same res­ig­na­tion from Mr Bin Ham­mam?

A. No.