'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·uI africa-union.o~ • Web www.ach .o~
Communication 615/16
Medhat Mohammed Bahieddin Ahmed (represented by the
Organization of European Alliance for Human Rights and Ors)
V
Egypt
Adopted by the
African Commission on Human and Peoples• Rights
during the 23rd Extra-Ordinary Session.from 13"' to 22"' Feb1'UQT)' 2018
Banjul, The Gambia
Communication 615/16 - Medhat Mohammed Bahieddin Ahmed (represented by the
Organization of European Alliance for Human Rights and Ors) 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 31 March 2016 on behalf of Mr. Medhat
Mohammed Bahieddin Ahmed (the Victim), from European Alliance and others
(the Complainants).
2. The Complaint is submitted against the Arab Republic of Egypt (the Respondent
State), State Party to the African Charter.1
3. The Complainants aver that on 03 July 2013, a military coup took place in the
Respondent State in which :vast human 1ights violations occurred. The regime
particularly sought to eliminat those opposed to the coup.
4. The Complainants allege that there were killings, forced disappearances, torture
of prisoners and inmates, as well as vio1ation of tl_le omen and children's rights
in detention. It states that victims of these alleged hyman rights violations were
denied their right to defense due to the arr sts and falsification of allegations
against lawyers who represented them in order to pressurize them to discontinue
their relevant legal services.
5. The Complainants allege that the "Authorities deprived people of their
nationali ·es, violated freedom of thinking especially that of university lecturers
and generally turned Egypt into a large prison to terrify the Egyptian people,
through lawlessness and in blatant breach of international human rights law".
6. Specifically, the Complain~ ts allege that on 07 February 2016, security forces
stormed the house of the Victim, an Egyptian national, born in 1972, who is an
English teacher. They allegedly broke all the household furniture and kidnapped
him.
7. The Complainants allege that the Victim was in hiding from 07 February 2016
until 14 February 2016 and no one knew about his whereabouts. It avers that the
Victim's family made efforts to look for him and did not find him until the
security forces presented him to them in a hyped state. Thereafter, investigations
were initiated and the Victim did not have access to a lawyer. On 24 February
1
The Republic of Egypt ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 March, 1984
2016, the public prosecutor released him, but the security forces forcibly took him
again. Mr. Medhat Mohammed Bahieddin Ahmed's whereabouts are still not
known.
8.
Regarding the need to exhaust domestic remedies, the Complainants submit that
the exhaustion of domestic remedies after the coup and under the current regime
has become absolutely impossible as the judiciary in Egypt is now compromised
as it has subdued itself to the military rulers who are now ruling in the country.
As a result, the Complainant alleges that the judges are not impartial and issue
unjustifiably harsh sentences against victims,,Jlbe Complainant also alleges that
judges, attorneys and lawyers who are impartial are either dismissed or accused
of unfounded allegations adding that court sentences have become politicized.
9. The Complainant alleges that this ComRlaint has never been presented before
any other international dispute settlement rum for, settlement or adjudication
and that the Complaint has been filed within a reasonable time in accordance
with Article 56(6) of the African Charter.
Articles alleged to have been violated
10. The Complai,nant alleges th t tl(e Re'spondent State has violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 19, {>O jllld 61 of the frican Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Procedure
11. The Secretariat received the Complaint on 31 March 2016 and acknowledged
rec~pt on 08 April 2016.
12. The A ican Commission on,J:Iuman and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) was
seized o.f the Communication during the 58 th Ordinary Session of the
Commission, held from 06 so 20 April 2016.
13. By letter and note verbale dated 28 April 2016 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.
14. By letter and note verbale dated 25 July 2016 the Complainant and the
Respondent State were informed that the Communication was deferred during
the 20th Extra-Ordinary Session, pending receipt of the Complainant's
submissions on admissibility.
15. By letter and note verbale dated 23 November 2016 the Complainant and the
Respondent State were informed that the Communication was deferred during
the 59th Ordinary Session, pending receipt of the Complainant's submissions on
admissibility. By the same communication, the Complainant was reminded to
submit submissions on admissibility within one (1) month, failing which it
would be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.
16. By letter and note verbale dated 11 July 2017 the Secretariat informed the Parties
that the Communication was deferred during the 60th Ordinary Session.
17. By note verbale dated 02 August 2017 and received at the Secretariat on 14
August 2017, the Respondent State indicated ttiat the Coll\Plainant had not made
their submissions on admissibility within the re uired time frame and requested
that the Communication be struck out.
18. By letter and note verbale dated 20 September 2017 the Secretariat informed the
Parties that the Complainant liad bee ~nted an additional thirty (30) days
within which to submit on admissibility, failing which the Communication
would be struck out or•lack of diligent prosecution.
~
19. In a note verbale dated 27 October
received at the Secretariat on 24
November 2017, the Respondent State indicated that the additional time had
expired and thus requested the Commission to"-Strike out the Communication.
Analysis of the Commission to strike out
20. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establishes that when the
Co~sion Has decided to. be seized of a Communication, it shall request the
Complainant to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months.
21. 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.
22. 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 28 June 2016.
However, the Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments within
the stipulated time. The said period was extended by the Commission for a
period of 30 calendar days and same had expired on the 23 December 2016.
23. During its 22nd Extraordinary Session which took place from 29 July to 07
August 2017, in Dakar, Republic of Senegal, the Commission decided, because it
was not satisfied that the Complainant has received the earlier correspondences
based on the evidence on record, to granted the Complainant a further period of
30 calendar days from the date of notification to submit evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the above mentioned Communication.
24. More than three (3) months have lapsed since the expiry of the last extended
period and no evidence and arguments have been submitted by the Complainant
on the admissibility of the Communication. There is also evidence on record that
the Complainant has received the letter granting further extension of time to
submit on admissibility.
25. In light of the above, the Commission therefore finds that, tb,e c;,omplainant has
shown no interest in prosecuting th. Communi ation.
26. 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 Communicatio 387/10: Kofi ):amagnane v. J'he Republic of Togo, which
were similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
Decision of the Commission
27. In view of the above, the Commission decides to strike out the Communication
for lack of diligent prosecution.
Done at the 23rd Ex a-Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Banjul, The
Gambia from 13 to 22 February 2018