'AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
UNI.AO 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 r.or
Communication 543/15
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-Ordinary Session, from 13" to 22"" Feb,uary 2018
Banjul, The Gambia
.-
~
,,tO~~u-•~•~~•t
tilllP••r o•.~
d
..................: . ~.........1.~ l;' ......~...................
l'OO\~,,
• •
c,_
Maiga
• <lfo11Y~J'RIC~l,f<
CommJSSl()Der
,;,uyata
r;ot'>f(:
Chairperson of the Aftican Commissit)n
on Human and Peoples' Rights
,;;'f'.;
()?
.1.-J-v I Dr• Mary Maboleu;;
'Secretary to the Aftican Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision for Strike Out
Communication 543/15 - 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), Dr Ezz al-Din Abdul- Wah b Allam and Dr Amir
Mohammad Bassam Mahmoud Youssef (tHe c {mplainants).
2. The Complaint is submitted ag •
State), a State Party to the Africa
African Charter) .1
'
Egypt (Respondent
eo les' Rights (the
~
3. The Complainants allege that following<,ffi_e 'bloody military tribalism coup' of 03
July 2013 in Egypt, ~X which a legitimatel:x elected government was ousted, the
human rights situation· the Respop ent Sta has deteriorated extensively.
4. The Complainan raise concerns al5out extr..a-judicial killings, torture, enforced
disappearances, tribal segregatjon, and unlawful arrests and disregard for fair trial
standards. The Complainants aqd that this is__aimed at punishing those who
opposed the abo\rementioned Coup.
5.
omplainants
be Ol;_e the ~ourt
memb.
r that opponents of the Coup have faced brutal allegations
State of Council, resulting in them as well as many
__,., , lists having their citizenship revoked.
6. The Complainant$ sub it.,,a list of names from a case which had been brought
before the Administrativi Court of the State Council, headed by Judge
Mohammed Mahmoud, deputy head of the State Council, concerning a demand
for the revocati~n of citizenship of those on the said list, including the third and
fourth Complainant herein.
7. 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.
8. The Complainants state that after the Coup it has been impossible to get judicial
remedies. The Complainant also affirms that this Complaint has never been
presented before any international dispute settlement forum.
1
Egypt ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 March 1984.
Articles alleged to have been violated
9. The Complainants allege violation of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 19, 60 and 61 of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Procedure
10. The Secretariat received the Complaint on 12 January 2015 and acknowledged
receipt on the same day.
11. The Secretariat received a revised translation of the C mplaint on 02 April 2015
and acknowledged receipt on 08 April 2015.
12. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) was
seized of the Communication during the 18th Extra-Ordinary Session of the
Commission, held from 29 July to 07 August 2015.
13. By letter and note verbale ated 29 Se tember 2015 the Co~.plainant and the
Respondent State were informed of the decision to be seized and the Complainant
was requested to present evidence d argu ents on admissibility within two (2)
months.
14. By letter dated 05 January 20i6 the Comp,lainant was informed that the
Communication was deferred during the 57th Ordinary Session, pending receipt
of the Compl$ant' 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 was lnfoi;.med that the Communication was deferred due to time
constraints.
15. By letter ana. note verbale dated 11 July 2017 the Secretariat informed the Parties
that the Communication was deferred during the 60 th Ordinary Session.
16. By letter and note verbale dated 20 September 2017 the Secretariat informed the
Parties that the Complainant had been granted an additional thirty (30) days
within which to submit on admissibility, failing which the Communication would
be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.
17. In a note verbale dated 27 October 2017 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
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 29 November 2015.
However, the Complainantdid not present any evidence and arguments within
the stipulated time and was informed tha they could no longer make any
submissions.
21. 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 Jrom the date of notification to submit evidence and arguments on the
admissibility of the above mentione Communication.
22. 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.
23. In light of the above, the Commission therefore finds that the Complainant has
shown no interest in prosecuting this Communication.
24. 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
25. 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 Fe ruary 2018