'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) 4410505/4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-ban·u1 africa-union.or • Web www.ach .or
Communication 544/15
European Alliance for Human Rights (AED) and 3 Others
V
Egypt
Adopted by the
African Commission on Human and Peoples• Rights
during the 23rd Extra-Ortlif,ary Session, from 13"' to 22"" February 2018
Banjul, The Gambia
d=-4••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Commissioner Soyata Maiga
Chairperson ofthe African Commission
on Human and Peoples• Rights
········~
················
Dr. Mary Maboreb •
Secretmy to the African Commission on
Human and Peoples• Rights
Communication 544/15 - European Alliance for Human Rights (AED) and 3 Others v.
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 January 2015 from European Alliance for
Human Rights (AED), Professor Dr Ahmed Jaber Mohammed Al-Haj and Dr Amir
Mohammad Bassam Mahmoud Youssef (the Complainants).
2. The Complaint is submitted against the Arab Republic of Egypt (Respondent
State), a State Party to the African Charter. on Ruman and Peoples' Rights (the
African Charter).1
3. The Complainants allege that following the 'bloody military- tribalism coup' of 03
July 2013 in Egypt, by which a legitimately elected government was ousted, the
human rights situation in the Respondent State has deteriorated extensively.
4. The Complainants .raise concerns about extra-judicial killings, torture, enforced
disappearances, tribal segregation, and unlawful arrests and disregard for fair trial
standards. The Complainants add that this is aimed at punishing those who
opposed the abovementioned Coup.
5. The Complainants aver that members of the academic community have been
prevented from enjoying their intellectual freedom, and their freedom of
movemen has also been curtailed, resulting in many of them fleeing the Country.
The Complainants add that the intellectuals face arrest upon their return.
6. The Complainants contend that members of the academic community in the
Egyptian universities and research centres have been assaulted and killed and
others expell d from their jobs, without the proper procedures being followed.
The Complainants aver that some members of some faculties have been
imprisoned.
7. The Complainants submit that the Coup authorities have been trying to control
the work of the academic community, especially on the World Wide Web, where
they are reported of spying on people on Facebook.
8. The Complainants affirm that they have official reports issued in April 2014 from
movements of universities against the Coup, which document the violations of
academic freedoms in Egypt.
1
Eg~t ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 March 1984.
9. The Complainants submit that up until March 2014, 1347 students were captured
and 176 killed. The Complainants further submit that it has been reported that 7
university professors died outside the scope of the law, 160 were imprisoned, with
20 later on being released and 25 are 'haunted' by security authorities contrary to
the Declaration of Kampala on Intellectual Freedom and Social Responsibility.
10. The Complainants allege that the Leaders of the Coup have gone further to label
and arrest lawyers and judges to make them step away from defending the
victims.
11. The Complainants state that after the Coup it has been impossible to get judicial
remedies. The Complainants also affirm that this Complaint has never been
presented before any other international dispute settlementJorum.
Articles alleged to have been violated
1. The Complainants allege violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 60 and 61 of the African
Charter on Human and P~oples' Rights.
Procedure
2. The Secretariat- received the C mplaint on 12 January 2015 and acknowledged
receipt on the same day.
3. The Secretariat received a revised translation of the Complaint on 02 April 2015
an acknowledged receipt on 08 April 2015.
4. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) was
seized of the Co
unication during the 18th Extra-Ordinary Session of the
Commission, held from 29 July to 07 August 2015.
5. By letter and note verbale dated 29 September 2015 the Complainant and the
Respondent State were informed of the decision to be seized and the Complainant
was requested to present evidence and arguments on admissibility within two (2)
months.
6. By letter dated 05 January 2016 the Complainant was informed that the
Communication was deferred during the 57th Ordinary Session, pending receipt
of the Complainant's submission on admissibility, and further that the deadline
for the said submissions expired on 29 November 2015, and therefore it was no
longer possible for the Complainant to make submissions on this Communication.
The Respondent State was informed that the Communication was deferred due to
time constraints.
7. By letters and note verbales dated 11 July 2017, 22 September 2017 and 24
November 2017, the Secretariat informed the Parties that the Communication was
deferred. The letter of 24 November 2017 also informed the Complainant that the
deadline for submissions expired on 29 November 2015, and that it was no longer
possible to make submissions on the admissibility of the Communication.
Analysis of the Commission to strike out
8. 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 Admissiqility witl:).in two (2) months.
9. 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 gr tan extension of time for a period not longer than one (1)
month.
i
10. In this case, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments
on the admissioility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date
of notification f the seizure decision, which had expired on 29 November 2015.
However, the Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments within
the stipulated time and was informed that they could no longer make any
subrrussions.
11. There is evidence on record that the Complainant has received the
correspondences of 05 January 2016 and 22 September 2017.
12. In light of the above, the Commission therefore finds that the Complainant has
shown no interest in prosecuting this Communication.
13. 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 for want of diligent prosecution.
Decision of the Commission
14. In view of the above, the Commission decides to strike out the Communication for
lack of diligent prosecution.
Done at the 2Jrd Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Banjul, The
Gambia from 13 to 22 Febo/11'2 18