'AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
UNIAO AFRICANA
African Commission on Human & Peoples •Rights
Commission Africaine des Droits de /'Homme & des Peuples
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region, P. 0 . Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia
Tel: (220) 44105051 4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-ban ·uI africa-union.01< • Web www.ach .01<
Communication 640/16
Mr Sharif Hassan Jalal Samak
V
The Arab Republic of Egypt
Adopted by the
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
during the 23"" Extra-Ordinary Session.from 13"' to 2r' February 2018
Banjul, The Gambia
Communication 640/16- Mr Sharif Hassan Jalal Samak v. The Arab Republic of Egypt
Summary of the Complaint
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the
Secretariat) received a Complaint on 12 October 2016 on behalf of Mr. Sharif
Hassan Jalal Samak (the Victim), represented by the Organisation of European
Alliance for Human Rights (AED) and AMAN Organization (the Complainants).
2. The Complaint is submitted against the Arab Republic of Egypt (the Respondent
State), State Party to the African Charter.
3. The Complainants allege that on 03 March 2014, ROlice raided the Victim's house,
beat him severely, stole his furniture and money and kidnapped him for ten
days.
4. During the time of the alleged kidfiapP,ing, the Complain ts allege that police
tortured the Victim through beatings ana electric shocks and also forced him to
admit to nine fabricated charges. In four of these charges, the ~ctim was tried in
military tribunals and the rest in local courts. .The Victim was sentenced to 37
years in prison.
5. The Complaints submit tha the Victim was moved from Tanta prison to Liman
Tora Prison. hile at Liman Tora frison, the Vi tim was tortured and subjected
to different forms of humiliatin treatment in a small room called 'room of
revenue'. There were 35 other inmates in the same cell. The small cell did not
ha:ye water, lighting and had poor ventilation. The Victim inhaled thick cigarette
smoke. According to the Complainants, the Victim suffered from angina and
fainted frequentlr.. His health deteriorated due to the prison conditions.
6. The Complainants submit that the Victim was transferred to another cell but had
the same conditions as the previous one. As the Victim's health deteriorated, he
was not allowed to get treatment and could not even use a catheter for his heart
condition. It is submitted that the Victim is also diabetic.
7. The Complainants submit that crimes committed against the Victim include:
violation of the Victim's right to administration of justice; harsh sentence; torture
and forced disappearance.
8. Regarding the need to exhaust domestic remedies, the Complainants submit that
the Victim exhausted all available domestic remedies as required under Article
56 of the African Charter. The Complainants allege that the prosecutor failed to
investigate incidents of torture that the Victim was subjected to. The
Complainants also submit that the Egyptian courts are not impartial; th~:¢!::!~
r:i•
()II ~uv.•H "1l Pfoo
!lt'•~·•r
-t,
l ~ "t-
f ( (~\~·;I
politicized and neutral Judges lose their jobs. They allege that the Judges issued
an unreasonably harsh sentence on the Victim.
9. The Complainants submit that this Complaint has never been presented before
any other international dispute settlement forum for settlement or adjudication
and that it has been filed before the African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights (the Commission) within a reasonable time in accordance with Article
56(6) of the Charter.
Articles alleged to have been violated
10. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7(a), (b), 8, 19, 60 and 61 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights.
Procedure
11. The Secretariat received the ComRlaint on 12 October 2016 and acknowledged
receipt on 17 October 2016.
12. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) was
seized of the Communication during tlle 59 th Ordinary Session of the
Commission, held from 21 October to 04 Nove ~er 2016.
13. Bi letter and not verbale dated 15 November 2016 the Complainant and the
R spondent State were informed of the decision to be seized and the
Comp ainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on admissibility
within two (2) months.
14. By letters and note verbales dated 11 July 2017 and 22 September 2017 the
Secretariat· formed the Parties that the Communication was deferred.
15. By note verbale dated 30 October 2017 and received at the Secretariat on 24
November 2017, the Respondent State indicated that the Complainant had not
made their submissions on admissibility within the required time frame and
requested that the Communication be struck out.
Analysis of the Commission to strike out
16. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establishes that when the
Commission has decided to be seized of a Communication, it shall request the
Complainant to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months.
17. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission,
either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated.
The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not longer than one
(1) month.
18. In this case, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date
of notification of the seizure decision which had expired on 15 January 2017.
However, the Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments within
the stipulated time.
19. To date, the Complainant has not (i) made any admissibility submissions, (ii)
responded to several correspondences from the Commission, including the last
one dated 22 September 2017 and (iii) has not requested for an extension of time
to submit. There is evidence on record that the Complainant has received the
most recent correspondence of 22 September 2017.
20. In light of the above, the Commission therefore • ds that the Complainant has
shown no interest in prosecutin~ this Communication.
21. The Commission takes note of its jurisprudence, including Communication
594/15: Mohammed Ramadan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. the Arab Republic of
Egypt, Communication 612/16: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Communication 412/12L Journal Echos du Nord v. Gabon
and Communication 387/10; Kofi Yamagnane v. The Republic of Togo, which
were similarly struck out fo want of diligent prosecution.
Decision of the Commission
22. In view of the above, the Commission decides to strike out the Communication
for lack of diligent prosecution.
Done at the 23rd Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Banjul, The
Gambia from 13 to 22 February 2018