uu<;u:;1y11 c:1ivt,iuµt: ,u. M'+'+OO 11.,::,-r,~ . > : : , A C-R u P r R
.
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri!'.lhts
Human Rights our
Collective Rcspons1h1 1ty
COMMUNICATION 650/17
Divine Chi and 74 Others
(represented by Professor
Carlson Anyangwe)
V
The Republic of Cameroon
Adopted lTy the:
African Commwion cm Human and PeopleJJ' Rights
During the 71"4 Ordinary Session, held virtually.from 19July ta 02 August 2022.
...........
..
H ~ ~~~;i-'Hi-lJ
my Ngoy Lumbu
Cha,
frican Commission
on Human and Peoples' R(qhts
nO-~.:itre
~frican(
l lnirin
,
The Afri can Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-ban1ul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.inUO O a
DECISION OF THE AFRICAN COMMISSION ON
HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS ON
ADMISSIBILITY
Communication 650/17: Divine Chi and 74
Others (represented by Professor Carlson
Anyangwe) v. Cameroon
SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT
1.
The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat)
received a Complaint on 20 February 2017 from KUM Bezeng and 75 Others (the
Complainants), represented by Professor Carlson Anyangwe. The Complaint was lodged
on behalf of themselves and of the People of the former UN Trust Territory of the Southern
Cameroons under the United Kingdom Administration.
2.
The Complaint is submitted against the Republic of Cameroon (the Respondent State), a
State Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter)1 .
3.
The Complainants in their complaint state that the territory referred to in this present
communication as "the Southern Cameroons", is the southern part of the British
Mandated/ Trusteeship Territory of British Cameroons in West Africa. They traced its
historical background and evolvement from 1916 to the end of World War I and under the
terms of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, to when the Southern Cameroons was administered
by the British, under the League of Nations and the United Nations (UN) as a Mandate and
Trust Territory respectively, to 1961, when, the Complainants allege, Southern Cameroons'
sovereignty was transferred in a pseudo-independent move to the already independent
former French Cameroon (la Republique du Cameroun) by the British.
4.
The Complainants also h·aced the evolvement of Southern Cameroons from 1961, when
the territory joined the already independent la Republique du Cameroun, to form the
Federal Republic of Cameroon, to 1972, when the Federal Republic of Cameroon changed
into the United Republic of Cameroon, and to 1984, when once again, the name changed
back to the Republic of Cameroun (la Republique du Cameroun)
5.
The Complainants state that after World War 1, the territory know
a German possession, was seized and split into British Carner
French Cameroun (larger part, which jncluded the Neue Kameru
~::;;;;;a--;::-~
1
cA~iltW
~--...
,,, erly
1<:and
b6th
(
Cameroon ra tified the Charter on June 2, 1989
1
subsequently excised by France and incorporated into what are now Chad, Central African
Republic, Congo Brazzaville and Gabon).
6.
The Complainants state that this territorial division was confirmed by the Milne-Simon
Declaration of 10 July 1919, and further in 1922 and 9 January 1931, by the League of
Nations, which granted Britain a mandate over the British Cameroons, and France a
mandate over French Cameroun. The Complainants add that in 1946, the UN once again
confirmed this territorial division in the Trusteeship Agreement relative to the British
Cameroons and the one relative to French Cameroun.
7.
The Complainants state that Britain administered the Southern Cameroons through the
British Resident with headquarters in Buea, in the Southern Cameroons territory, as
though it formed an integral part of Nigeria, but not joined to the British territory of
Nigeria.
8.
The Complainants state on 1 January 1960 French Cameroun gained independence under
the name and style of la Republique du Cameroun and on 1 October 1960 Nigeria gained
independence as the Federal Republic of Nigeria, while the question of independence for
the Southern Cameroons remained unresolved.
9.
The Complainants submit that the decolonisation woes of the Southern Cameroons began
in 1959, when the UN stampeded the Trust Territory into a plebiscite with two dead-end
alternatives. By UN General Assembly resolution 1352 (XIV) of 16 October 1959, the UN
decided that a plebiscite must be held in the Territory. The Complainants allege that
notwithstanding strong objections by the political leadership of the Territory, the plebiscite
took place on 11 February 1961, with the people of the trust territory given only two choices
to choose between: to achieve independence by 'joining' Nigeria or to achieve
independence by 'joining' former French Cameroun. The third option of achieving
independence as a separate state was left out as it was vehemently opposed by the UK
Government.
10.
The Complainants also submit that between 1959 and 1960, French Cameroun publicly
gave the UN and the people of the Southern Cameroons two critical assurances: that it was
ready to associate with the Southern Cameroons in a federation of two states, equal in
status; and that it was not annexationist and would not colonize the Southern Cameroons.
These assurances influenced the plebiscite vote in favour of political association with
former French Cameroun rather than with Nigeria.
11.
The Complainants aver that on 21 April 1961, the UN General Assembly adopted
Resolution 1608 (XV) by which it endorsed the decision of the people of the Southern
Cameroons to achieve independence. The General Assembly then set 1 October 1961 as the
effective date of achievement of that independence. It also set the same 1 Oct eI 1961, as
the date of termination of trusteeship; and of political association beru,..,.....,., itliieA-S~ ern
Cameroons and former French Cameroun in a two-state federation
c;;-O\<c,,c,,.,.."-'AR,4 ., ""<-o"
~
<~
..~
12.
\.
The Complainants allege that, on 1 Sept 1961 former French e l m ouh cu • gly
amended its constitution of 4 March 1960, renaming it the "Cons "tµ tio ol'fue Federal
I
ct.. (?,
~U \.)/1.
r' 2
~
--5-...
,y 4•RIC~1t-·
(''
C: ft (lE'
Republic of Cameroun". The amendment involved the annexation of the Southern
Cameroons and had the effect of extinguishing the Southern Cameroons political status as
a self-governing territory schedule to achieve independence on 1 October 1961. In the same
month, the French-led troops of former French Cameroun violated the territorial integrity
of the Southern Cameroons and committed acts of murder.
13.
The Complainants state that on 30th September 1961, the UK Administering Authority of
the Southern Cameroons invited a foreign leader, the President of former French
Cameroun, to the Southern Cameroons and, as the British Government herself has since
admitted " transferred sovereignty over the Southern Cameroons to the Republic of
Cameroun". The effect of that transfer was that the Southern Cameroons once again found
herself under foreign rule: re-colonization rather than decolonization was the result, with
the Southern Cameroons moving from rule by the UK to rule by la Republique du
Cameroun, successor colonialist. What has thus been dubbed as the "Anglophone
Problem" is actually a problem of decolonization from a black-on-black colonization.
14. The Complainants also allege that on 20 May 1972, the Yaounde government of la
Republique du Cameroun staged a so-called referendum in which the majority French
speakers approved a highly centralized constitution and the federal state was replaced
with a unitary state denoted as "United Republic of Cameroon". Southern Cameroons'
autonomous status, liberal constitution, institutions, governance structures and state
culture were overnight decreed out of existence. The territory was split into two,
thenceforth designated as Cameroun Northwest and Southwest Provinces. The people of
the Southern Cameroons vehemently denounced their experience and common suffering
as annexation and colonization de novo, and many Pro-independence groups, such as the
Cameroon Anglophone Movement (CAM), the Southern Cameroons National Council
(SNCN), the Southern Cameroons Youth League (SCYL), Ambazonia, Free West
Cameroon, and the Southern Cameroons Peoples' Organization etc. soon emerged,
challenging the new dispensation and sh·uggling for independence. They decried, inter
alia, the subjugation of the people of the Southern Cameroons.
15.
The Complainants submit that the Pro-independence groups point to the nonimplementation of UN Resolution 1608 (XV) of 21 April 1961, which required the
Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of the Southern Cameroons and the
Government of the Republic of Cameroun to engage in talks with a view to finalize and
implement before 1 October 1961, the agreed measures for political association of the
Southern Cameroons and former French Cameroun; and violation by the UK Government
of the binding UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. The
violation of this insh·ument consisted in the fact that before leaving the Southern
Cameroons on 30 September 1961, Britain handed sovereignty over the Southern
Cameroons, NOT to the elected Government of the Southern Cameroons as required by
international law but to a foreign country: former French Cameroun.
-
"la Republique du Cameroun on 1 January 1960;
then transmuted into la Republique Federale du Cameroun on 1 September 1961;
then metamorphosed to la Republique Unie du Cameroun on 2 June 1972; and
then summersaulted back to la Republique du Cameroun in January/Februan; 1984."
17.
The Complainants state that going forward, representatives of the Southern Cameroons
activists' groups convened two "All Anglophone Conferences" (AACl and AAC2) in Buea
in April 1993, and Bamenda in 1994 respectively. These Conferences issued the "Buea
Declaration", which called for constitutional revision to restore the 1961 federation agreed
upon in writing between the Southern Cameroons and former French Cameroun, and the
"Bamenda Proclamation", which stated that if the federal state was not restored within a
reasonable time, the Southern Cameroons would assert its independence and take
necessary measures to protect its territorial integrity and safeguard its people.
18.
The Complainants submit that the AAC was renamed the Southern Cameroons Peoples
Conference (SCPC) with the (SCNC) as the executive governing body. Later in 1995, there
emerged the Southern Cameroons Peoples Organization (SCAPO) and the Southern
Cameroons Youth League (SCYL).
19.
The Complainants also submit that in furtherance of their independence objectives for the
Southern Cameroons, the SCNC sent a delegation, led by John Ngu Foncha, former Prime
Minister of the Southern Cameroons and former Vice President of the Federal Republic of
Cameroon, to the UN. The delegation was received on 1 June 1995. It presented a petition
against the annexation and colonization of the Southern Cameroons by Republic of
Cameroun. This was followed by a signature referendum the same year, which produced
a 99% vote for independence with 315,000 people voting, a voting-electorate turnout far
higher than at any electoral consultation in the Southern Cameroons.
20.
The Complainants submit that the territory of the Southern Cameroons has an estimated
population of about 7 million inhabitants and a land size of 43,000 sq. km. It is well
endowed with natural resources including: oil, gas, iron, gold, diamonds, bauxite, salt,
timber, medicinal plants, rare species of fauna and flora, food crops of a wide variety, and
agricultural export crops such as rubber, banana, tea, oil palm and coffee. Forming an
integral part of the territory is the much-talked-about Bakassi Peninsula with its large and
varied fish stocks and huge oil and gas reserves
A previous related complaint before the African Commission: Gumne et al. v Cameroun
21.
The Complainants made referenced to a previous complaint before the African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission), filed on 9 January 2003, by
the SCNC and SCAPO, against former French Cameroun (Gumne et ~ v \-\u'W1-., oun),
wherein SCNC and SCAPO alleged that former French Cameroun is i~g~~Yl ocoi,I,pyipg
the territory of the Southern Cameroons, the frontiers of which are firrhl.'y
uretl-~ the
treaties mentioned above.
s
4
22.
The Complainants submit that in that Communication, the Complainan ts alleged the
viola tion by former French Cameroon of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17(1), 19,
20, 21, 22, 23(1), and 24 of the African Charter and ultima tely sou ght the independence of
the territory of the Southern Cameroons.
23.
The Complainants submit further tha t in its decision reached at its 45 th Ordinary Session
on 27 May 2009, the Commission found that the Republic of Cameroun has violated
Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 (1), 10, 11, 19 and 26 the Charter. The Commission determined that
Articles 12, 13, 17 (1), 20, 21, 22, 23 (1) and 24 have not been violated .
24.
The Complainants s ubmit that the Commission recommended that the Respondent Sta te
should among o ther things enter into constructive dialogue with the Complainants, and in
particular SCNC and SCAPO, to resolve the constitutional issues, as well as grievances.
25.
The Complainants allege that since this decision of the Commission, no attempt has been
made by the government of the Republic of Cameroun to engage in any dialogue. They
allege that none of the recommendations made by the Commission has been implemented
by the Republic of Cameroon and the Commission itself has not invoked Rule 112 of its
Rules of Procedure.
26.
The Complainants sta te that the present Communication is m otivated by the events
unfolding in Cameroon . The Complainant submit that after several months of
complaining, sometime in June/July 2016, Lawyers from the Southern Cameroons,
belonging to the Common Law Legal System, down tools and refused to go to Court citing
a catalogue of marginalization, discrimination, oppression and unfair treatment of the
people of the Southern Cameroons and in the use of the English language and the Common
law.
27.
The Complainants submit that on 6 October 2016, the Common Law Lawyers Bar
Associations in the Southern Cameroons (aka Cameroun Northwest and Southwest
Regions) called a 4-day "sit-down strike from all court actions". The Lawyers stated that
their strike action was predicated on the fact that their memos and demands to the
government had been ignored, and that they w ere further vexed by the fact that when
some of their members decided to exercise their constitutional right of freedom of
expression through a press conference, the French-speaking adminis trative officials who
are the ones administering the Southern Cameroons, imposed a ban on any meeting by
Lawyers under pain of imprisonment. As if this stifling of freedom of assembly and of
expression was not enough the Lawyers were allegedly subjected to police harassment and
humiliation.
28.
The Complainants allege that in the course of the Lawyers' peaceful demonstra tion, the
government sent in para-military police. The police had a field day ..w'<lil'-'':iimn,g tbe
Lawyers, beating them with truncheons, seizing their robes and wigs, ,~f: stmf ffi~s 0/
I ke
them, and leaving some with serious injuries. It is alleged that the polit#"" ar
the wigs and gowns to this day.
5
29.
The Complainants aver that the actions of the para-military police (the Camerounese police
is militarized) drew serious condemnation from the public, including the diplomatic corps,
local and international human rights organizations, University of Pretoria Centre for
Human Rights, civil society, and the international community. After weeks trying
unsuccessfully to defend the actions of the para-military police, the government set up a
Committee to meet with the Lawyers. After a number of meetings, the Lawyers noted that
the government was not interested in genuine negotiation but was rather intimidating and
threatening the representatives of the Lawyers to these meetings and carrying out
repressive actions through its police and military.
30.
The Complainants submit that other Southern Cameroons professional groups, including
Anglophone Teachers also joined the protest, requesting for better conditions of service,
and for the promotion of a purely Anglo-Saxon system of education. This time the
government responded by moving in her military forces (established essentially for
internal repression), particularly her gendarmerie and her rapid intervention brigade
known by the French acronym B.I.R. (Brigade d' Intervention Rapide) which violently
targets the strikers using live bullets against unarmed civilians.
31.
The Complainants allege that there were reported cases of killings, of systematic torture,
of persons disappeared and of serious injuries. A wave of massive abductions followed,
the abductees being carted to Yaounde in former French Cameroun for trial in a military
tribunal in a language and under a legal system they do not understand. Images and videos
circulating on social media showed gruesome killings particularly in Bamenda and
Kumba. They showed BIR soldiers torturing protesters seized from the streets and from
houses. They showed security forces hovering over female students lying in the mud and
of officers beating students in their dormitories. They showed terror-stricken truck-loads
of persons, bare skinned or thinly dressed, crouching in military and police trucks with
armed soldiers keeping an eye on them and being moved to Yaounde.
32.
The Complainants also allege that in recent weeks, " dozens of protesters have been
arrested and moved to Yaounde" (New York Times, February 10, 2017). The Complainants
add that the 36 year-old regime of President Biya has not as much as acknowledged these
gross and reliably attested human rights violations committed by his military, let alone
apologized and put a stop to them, but has instead opted for an unconvincing general
denial of their existence while incongruously declaring in a speech on 10 February 2017
that the crackdown shall continue. In this regard, the Complainants submit that they shall
present some of the gruesome images and video!:. depicting the gross human rights
violations in due course.
33.
The Complainants submit that the government of the Republic of Came.roun engaged both
the lawyers and teachers in apparent negotiations, setting up an ad hoc committee
seemingly to deal with various issues. During the ' negotiations', the la
• rd~ hers
included federation on the agenda as part of the demands they had ma ~ ih~ iYth1!aZ&to
the authorities. They pointed out that their grievances could onlJ t>e st res ved,
protected and safeguarded under a federal system of government, at•the ery least. T he
government's response and official position was, and has remained, th$l fed ralism is a
political matter on which it was not prepared to discuss, and that talk Qf ~ • dE!r'a.ti~n was
'
Kl
~~
I
[ 1l'
6
a taboo subject. The government proceeded to ban any media discussion on federalism. It
criminalized any advocacy of a federal system of government. It criminalized any support
for the ongoing teachers and lawyers' strike. Its argument for taking these unwarranted,
extreme and draconian measures is the fiction that federalism is the same thing as
"dividing the one and indivisible Cameroun".
34.
The Complainants submit that after a couple of meetings the parties could not agree and
negotiations stalled. When negotiations failed, the lawyers, who had formed a Civil Society
Consortium decided to call for civil disobedience, which included intensifying the school
boycott, court boycotts and other services, including private taxi services. The form of nonviolent civil protest that has been instituted is denoted as "operation ghost towns": every
week there is suspension of daily life in the following manner - on Monday and Tuesday
everyone stays at home with no shops and markets opened, effectively making the streets
quiet; Wednesday to Saturday normal resumption of daily life; and Sunday, day of
prayers. Meanwhile school and court boycott continue indefinitely.
35.
The Complainants submit that in response to the call for civil disobedience and operation
ghost town, the government resorted to further acts in terrorem, heavy handedness and
intensified military crackdown occasioning a number of deaths, injuries and abductions by
the military and police. Anyone in the Southern Cameroon suspected of being a member
of the teachers' or lawyers associations or of the consortium is, like many protesters before
them, liable to abduction, taken to Yaow1de in former French CameroW1 and imprisoned
under life-threatening conditions while the authorities fish for charges. Almost all the
leaders of the Consortium were picked up in the Southern Cameroon and whisked to
Yaounde, the capital of former French Cameroun.
36.
The Complainants submit further that some of the arrested leaders and activist arrested
have been charged with capital offences such as terrorism, treason, secession, and
subversion. They are being tried in military tribW1al in French and under the French
system. As government crackdown intensifies, other leaders of the Consortium and many
English speakers fighting for self-determination of the Southern Cameroons have managed
to escape and sought refuge in friendly countries. Common law bar associations have
w1believably been ba1med as terrorist organisations, along with a number of other
associations. Pleas by even the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Baptist
Church have all been dismissed with contempt by the Yaounde regime.
The Complaint
37.
The Complainants allege that since December 2016, there has been massive, indiscriminate
and arbitrary arrests, disappearances of suspects in Southern Cameroon, all of them picked
up during the night without any due process of an arrest warrant and taken to Yaounde
where they are locked up and tortured. The indiscriminate anest includes A ~l;!~te. ~ourt
State Prosecutors, teachers, lawyers, and other senior elites of Sou . ,~fRc& m ~ro~
extraction. To date, it is estimated that over 200 people have been a~ducfed roH\ ,the
Southern Cameroon by government security forces, some have been faun loc~ed up,in
life-threatening jails in Yaounde, some have not been traced and there ar rurn,ours that
..
they have been killed and buried in mass graves around Yaounde.
\\.,t 1,
..;"Rl!;P.\~'i;.'
'.:
-1•,,1[ f T 01::.S I'
....._,,_.
',,7,
38.
The Complainants submit that the intimidation and act of collective punishment of
Southern Cameroons citizens by the government of the former French Cameroon
continues unabated with the total blackout of internet services in the Southern Cameroons
since January 2017, further provoking the anger of a population accustomed to using social
media to communicate, and internet-based cash transfers to send money for business
transactions and to relatives.
39.
The Complainants add that since the shutdown of internet in the Southern Cameroons
there are, in the Southern Cameroons, indiscriminate stop-and-on-the-spot checks,
seizures and arrests of persons suspected of disseminating information through social
media. This has resulted in the seizure and destruction of mobile phones of a number of
citizens of the Southern Cameroons simply because messages about the civil disobedience
were found in their phones.
40.
The Complainant allege further that all the towns and villages in the Southern Cameroon
are heavily militarized and there are reports of arrests and shootings (with live
ammunitions) on a daily basis, resulting to lootings, destruction of property and more
deaths. The number of persons killed by the military is as yet difficult to determine. But
they are certainly high to have elicited serious concern worldwide. The Daily Mail of
London, 13 February 2017, gives the conservative figure of" at least six protesters shot dead
and hundreds others arrested". Lawyers have boycotted Courts in the Southern
Cameroons for over four months now, schools have been shut for the same period of time.
Proponents of federalism are arrested. It is now a treasonable and even an offence of
terrorism to advocate for federalism, as, according to the government of la Republique du
Cameroun, federalism is a threat to the unity of Cameroun. There is therefore no Court
with jurisdiction to adjudicate any petition calling for a federation system in Cameroon.
41.
The Complainants finally submit that proponents of federalism now maintain that given
the refusal by la Republique du Cameroun to accept a return to the federation of two states,
equal in status, agreed upon between the Southern Cameroons and former French
Cameroun in 1960 and which influenced the 11 February 1961 plebiscite vote for political
association with former French Cameroun, then under the circumstances the Southern
Cameroons is left with no other option than to break away from its colonial bondage and
immediately restore its statehood as an independent state.
Articles alleged to have been violated
42.
The Complainants allege that the actions of the government of la Republique du Cameroun
constitute serious and massive violations of human and peoples' rights, including in
particular Articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 2 f th~frican
~ ~\U ~1AN 4
Charter.
~ 0 (TAR, ,..,,o,,,
,.,o ~e,\'l.
41
<"'" ":,
~C
~
Prayers
l
\.
-----
u
43.
'
/ hwnan
The Complainants request the Commission in view of the massive ; aRc ser·ousA
rights violations, the militarization of the Southern Cameroons (al<a I or,_th~es( az1d
"4
I
8
I ·,11 \,
• O~lf?{' fT [)\
~
I
Southwest regions) and the imminent risks of further loss of life as a result of the presence
of armed soldiers in every corner of the Southern Cameroons, to issue Provisional
Measures:
(i)
requiring the government of la Republique du Cameroun to pull out its heavy
military presence and close down its numerous military outposts strewn all over the
territory of the former UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons.
(ii) requiring the government of la Republique du Cameroun to end forthwith its
kidnapping, intimidation, the daily threatening of citizens of the Southern
Cameroons with abduction, imprisonment and death, and the carrying out of any
other acts in terrorem.
(iii) la Republique du Cameroun to immediately restore internet services in the Southern
Cameroons; and to make such other interim orders as the Commission may consider
appropriate.
44.
The Complainants also call on the Commission to transfer this matter to the African Court
on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Court), under Rule 118(3) of the Commission's Rules
of Procedure.
Procedure
45.
The Secretariat received the Complaint on 20 February 2017 and ackn owledged receipt on
23 February 2017, informing the Complainant that the Complaint will be tabled before the
Commission for consideration at its 21 Exh·a-Ordinary Session holding in Banjul-The
Gambia from 23 February - 4 March 2017.
46.
The Commission was seized with the matter, at its 21 Extra-Ordinary Session holding in
Banjul-The Gambia from 23 February - 4 March 2017, during which provisional measures
were equally approved.
47.
The Respondent State was informed of the Seizure decision, by the Secretariat, through a
Note Verbal addressed to the Ministry of External Relations of the Republic of Cameroon
in June 2017.
48.
On August 2017, the Secretariat, through its Registry, received the Complainant's
submissions on Admissibility. The latter were transferred to the Respondent State.
49.
In March 2018, the Secretariat received the State's submission on preliminary observations
by Note Verbal referenced 0758 DIP1/D8/SDASE1/SAM.
50.
During its 26th Extraordinary Session, held from 16 to 30 July 2019, in Banj~ lJJ.e Gambia,
the Commission ruled to consider the preliminary observations raised ]a ffeR~s,opdent
State at the Admissibility stage. Additionally, the Commission deci~eil 1:bc1-H'!cfue1t:d' e
Respondent State a period of 30 days to submit its observations on admiss'lS11ity.
J
51.
In February 2020, Mr. Kum Bezeng submitted a request for Withdr
Complainant to the Secretariat.
I\ l
hie£
'I
;.., .I;.\)
"( I
VI
,,
o
I
/9
52.
In its 66th Ordinary Session, held from 13 July to 7 August 2020, the Commission decided
to defer the consideration of the Communication the following sessions.
53.
In its 68th Ordinary session, held virtually from 14 April to 4 May 2021, the Commission
decided to defer the consideration of the Communication to a later session, while
indicating the second name on the list of complainants as chief complainant.
Preliminary observations
54.
The State of Cameroon, in its submissions, requested that the Commission addressed its
preliminary observations before proceeding to its analysis on Admissibility.
55.
The Respondent State submits that in their statement of facts, the authors of the
Communication use expressions tending to deny the existence of the State of Cameroon in
its current territorial extent.
56.
The State further submits that it describes a situation of occupation of the territory called
··Former United Nations Trust Territory of the British Southern Cameroon.. or Southern
Cameroons·· and the violation of the rights of the citizens of this territory.
57.
The Defendant State submits furthermore that the authors describe a situation of
occupation of the territory called ··Former United Nations Trust Territory of the British
Southern Cameroon·· or Southern Cameroons·· and the violation of the rights of the citizens
of the said territory. Indeed, the State affirms that the authors allege that ··a wave of massive
abductions followed, the abductees being chartered to Yaounde in Former French
Cameroon for trial in a military tribunal in a language and under a legal system they do
not understand.
58.
The Sate argues that such a description excludes this territory from the territorial
boundaries of the Republic of Cameroon, and consequently, the State of Cameroon would
be brought before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights for facts that
took place outside its territory.
Analysis of the preliminary observation
59.
Rule 103 (4) of the 2010 Rules of Procedures of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples' Rights provides that ..when the Commission receives a preliminary objection, it
shall first of all determine this objection before anything other question related to the
Communication··.
60.
The Commission established a clear principle in the case of Luke Mwy a1{~T,~mb~i and
"' ? 1't
\ 41: ,,
Benjamin John Freeth (represented by Norman Tjombe) v Angola an"d
·rtee Others, 2
determining " the Commission became seized of the present Cam , nication nlYc, in
,u
'
2
Communication 409/12- Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth (represe,;ted by Norfnah Tj'J!!be) v
Angola and Thirteen Others, https://www.achpr.org/public/Document/file/English/c1chpr54_409_;J ?_eng:pqf,
n,
1
'
10
,\'I'-
.....__'I, . . . . .
/
' ~
relation to the fourteen Respondent States, in their individual capacities as State parties to
the African Charter. In deciding to be seized in the above-mentioned case, the Commission
set a clear precedent as to the determination of its competence where several Respondents
may be identified.
61.
The Respondent State argues that the Complaint should be rejected, due to the fact that the
denomination ..Former French Cameroon" does not correspond to the official appellation
of the current State of Cameroon, and therefore, it is not a State party to the Charter.
However, the Complainants clearly equally state that "It is now treasonable and even an
offense of terrorism to advocate for federalism, as according to the government of la
Republique du Cameroun.
62.
In this regard, the State of Cameroon is indeed identified, and as a State party to the
Charter, the Commission will solely take the latter into consideration.
63.
With regards to the challenge related to the violations having taken place outside the
territory of the Respond State, due to the unknown terms such as "Southern Cameroons",
used by the Complainants, the Commission will eventually analyze it while deliberating
on Merits.
Admissibility
The Complainant's submission on admissibility
64.
The Complainants submit that the Communication satisfies all the Admissibility
requirements set out in Article 56 of the African Charter and presents argument in support
of this submission.
65.
Concerning Article 56 (1) of the African Charter, the Complainants aver that the Authors
have clearly been identified and have sought no anonymity.
66.
Regarding Article 56 (2) of the African Charter, the Complainants submit that the
Communication is compatible with the Constitutive Act and the Charter as they relate to
violations of rights contained in the Charter and principles enshrined in the Constitutive
Act of the African Union.
67.
On Article 56(3) of the African Charter, the Complainants submit that the Communication
is written in a simple, restrained and respectful manner, and therefore void of disparaging
and insulting language.
68.
Concerning Article 56(4) of the African Charter, the Complainants submit that the
Communication is based on personal experiences, eye witness accountsf ~ f¼8{ hij!ional
and international organizations, including the African Union Com;nnsst5 the' Aftican
tional
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Amnesty Internationaf C eroon
Human Rights Commission, the United Nations High Commissioqer f r uman Rights,
and many others.
1, 9,
11
69.
With regards to Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the Complainants argue that this
matter has no t been taken to the Courts of la Republique du Cameroun due to
una vajJability and infectivity of the remedies. The Complainant further submits that there
is no Court in Cameroun that has jurisdiction to hear petitions on federation, which
according to the government is a threa t to the unity of la Republique du Cameroun and a
treasonable offence.
70.
The Complainants further alleges that, many leaders in favour of federalism have either
been arrested and charged with capital offences or fled the country, while the government
has outlawed any form of discussion in tha t direction. The complainants conclude on this
matter that, given the alleged repressive environment, coupled with the fact that Lawyers
in the south of the country have been on strike, it is not possible for the complainants to
a ttempt exhausting local remedies.
71.
Concerning Article 56(6) of the African Charter, the Complainants argue that this matter
has not been subjected to the jurisdiction of the local Courts because local remedies are not
available.
72.
With regard to Article 56(7) of the African Charter, the Complainants assert that the
complaint has not been submitted to any international Adjudica tory forum.
The State's submission on admissibility
73.
On the identity of the authors, the respondent State submits that, it is difficult to establish
the link between the applicants, all of whom are established on foreign territory, and the
alleged- populations of Southern Cameroons, and to determine whether they have
received a mandate from these populations to act on their behalf. The Sta te further submits
tha t, given that the 76 authors of the communication consider themselves to be victims of
the violations alleged in the communication, they should indicate precisely the nature of
the violations tha t concern them.
74.
The State avers furthermore that, tt can be seen that the account of the facts by the authors
of the Communication reveals that they do not objectively characterise U1e viola tions of
which they were allegedly victims, which implies that it is therefore not a question of the
deba te on the representation of victims, but of the quality of the authors of the
communication who claim victim status.
75.
With regard to the compatibility to the AU Charter, the respondent State submits that, The
present Communication relays demands tha t are antinomic and contrary to the ideais and
principles that underpin the functioning of the African Union . The principle of respect for
the sanctity of human life and the condemnation and rejection of impunity, political
assassinations, acts of terro rism and subversive activities is eminently ensl r-in~J:Lip Article
4 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. However, the multiple v.jb~M:!-xactions
perpeb·ated by groups related to the authors of U1e Communication is~ de~nstration of
the viola tion of this principle. The Commission's courh·oom cannot be tne appropriate
place to obtain support for such acts. 111e communica tion must theref6re be declared "
inadmissible on this count.
,
12
76.
On the issue related to disparaging and ins ulting language, the State argues that the
Communication is replete with numerous exb·acts formulated in terms that are oub·ageous
and insulting to the State of Cameroon. The State further indicates that the Complainant,
accuses the Government of being at the origin of enforced disappearances in the following
terms, implying a «persistent rumour indicating that some had been killed and buried in
mass graves in the vicinity of Yaounde».
77.
Concerning the sources of information, the State emphasizes that such defamatory
allegations, of which the applicants have not provided any evidence, are insulting to the
State of Ca meroon and its institutions and are likely to discredit the country's image. The
State argues furthermore that, the seriousness of such allegations is such that the applicants
and the Commission should sufficiently appreciate their significance, especially since, as
they so clearly state, they are based on mere rumours.
78.
In relation with exhaustion of remedies, the State affirms that, legally constituted parties
publicly express their opinions on the form of the State, particularly the federal form.
Additionally, the State avers that, these leaders had the opportunity to speak about it
during the Great National Dialogue and therefore, it cannot be argued that most of the
leaders are either arrested or forced into exile.
79.
The Sta te argues further that, it cannot be argued that the courts have been closed in both
regions of the country, seeing as the courts are functioning and currently examining cases
concerning persons involved in the events, both as alleged p erpetrators and as victims. It
is submitted furthermore tl1at, the rights of the various parties are guaranteed according
to the applicable procedural rules. Several cases of release have been recorded, as well as
acquittals, as parents of pupils have appeared on behalf of their children for acts that could
characterise a violation of the right to education.
80.
The State argues that acts of arson were recorded against certain judicial infrastructures,
notably the Pubiic Prosecutor's Office at the First Instance Court of Tombel on 15 October
2017 and the First Instance Court of Batibo on the night of 25 November 2017. In addition,
it is alleged that the afore mentioned actions were carried out with the intent of forcing the
cessa tion of the functioning of the courts in order to better support the w1availability of
recourse.
81.
The State submits that, In light of the 3Bakweri Land Claim Committee decision, the
complainant cannot simply allude to unavailability of courts without attempting to
effectively use them and therefore, as it it is tl1e duty of the CompJafrv1i11t 'to take all
necessary steps to exhaus t o r a t least attempt to exh aust domestic remedfeS\{c,
82.
The State further submits that pursuant to 4Communication 1962/2010, s.rl'-< tha:espite
the fact there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies where they have no chance of
I
3
Communication 260102: Bakweri Land Claims Committee I Cameroon,
htt~
.w,actwL.QigfQ.Uhli.cLQ.ru;_um_emL.fi!eLEngl.isllla.cilPI.3JL2.6.Q_Q2_eng...ru1f
• Communication No. 1962/2010, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/107/O/1962/2010 (201 3),
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/1962-201 O.html
13
success, the mere fact that there is doubt as to their effectiveness does not absolve the
author of a communication from the obligation to exhaust them .
83.
The Sta te submits furthermore that the authors express strong suspicions about the ability
of Cameroonian courts to provide a useful remedy for the alleged victims; which clearly
implies tha t the remedies do not work.
84.
The Defendant State avers that the State has already demonstrated the absence of climate
of terror alleged against public authorities, whom are doing their utmost to fulfil their
obligation to guarantee the security of persons and property and to multiply the acts of
decongesting the social climate. In addition; the States asserts that it has been addressing
the several complaints lodged by parents regarding discrimination at schools.
85.
The Sta te submits, with regard to Article 56(7) of the Charter, that the central claim of the
present Communication around which the other allegations of rights violations are built is
the right to self-determination. In that regard; it is alleged that the Commission has
deliberated on the ma tter several times.
86.
The State recalls Communication No. 266/ 03,5 in which it is stated that the African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights cannot be invoked by a complainant to
threa ten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a State Party (para 191). In that regard,
the State avers tha t this matter, which is based on the issue of self-determination has
already been settled by the Commission.
The Commission's Analysis on Admissibility
87.
The present matter is brought under Article 55 of the Charter, and as such, needs to satisfy
the seven (7) cumulative conditions of Article 56 of the Charter on the Admissibility of
Communica tions.
Indication of authors (Article 56 (1))
88.
Article 56 (1) states that Communications should 'indicate their authors even if the latter
request anonymity'. As recorded in the Complainant's submissions and the procedure, the
authors have been duly identified.
89.
The Respondent State argues that ··it is difficult to establish the link between the applicants,
all of whom are established on foreign territory, and the alleged- populations of Southern
Cameroons, and to determine whether they have received a mandate from these
populations to act on their behalf·. However, the Charter demands a i;ner~1Uidi~ati9w,pf
authors, while it is silent on the need for a manda te. In addition, in the case of M~la~ i
African Association et al/ Mauritania6, the Commission held that "Articl~ 56.1 demands
5
Communication No. 266/03: Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al I Cameroon,
htlps://W>Nw.achpr.org/sessions/des.cions1id=-1.8.9
6
54/91 -61 /9 1-96/93-98/93-164/97_ 196/97-2 10/98: Malawi Africa
Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Union interafricaine
14
simply that communications should indicate the names of those submitting and not those
of all the victims of the alleged violations... In this regard, the Commission concludes that
the conditions of Article 56 (1) have been satisfied.
Compatibility with the African Charter and Constitutive Act of the African Union (Article 56
(2))
90.
Article 56 (2) requires that Communications are 'compatible with the Charter of the
Organization of African Unity or with the present Charter'.
91.
As held by the Commission in Communication 321/2006 - Law Society of Zimbabwe et al
v Zimbabwe (2013) ACHPR para 67 "the compatibility of a Communication with the
Constitutive Act of the African Union is grounded on its compatibility with the objectives
and principles enshrined in the Act, specifically, as to whether the prayers requested in the
Communication would contravene the objectives or principles expressed in the Act"7
92.
The above principle entails that the communication should be brought against a State party
to the African Charter. Additionally, the communication must allege prima facie violations
of rights protected by the African Charter, and finally, the communication should be
brought in respect of violations that occurred after State's ratification of the Charter, or
where violations began before the State Party ratified the African Charter, have continued
even after such ratification.
93.
In this particular case, the Commission has demonstrated in its analysis of the preliminary
observation that the case has indeed been brought against the Republic of Cameroon.
94.
The determination of prima facie violations is reached through a mere preliminary analysis
of the facts, which is, in principle, the justification of the Seizure of the Commission. In this
particular case, the Complainants allege that since December 2016, massive, indiscriminate
and arbitrary arrests, disappearances of suspects, acts of torture and assassinati.9ns have
taken place in "Southern Cameroon". In that regard, articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ? 9,ul0, Tt l2,
13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Charter have allegedly been violated. , qJ;withstanding
the necessary analysis and findings of the Commission on all articles a\ (he rvj.eritstag the·
Commission finds that the Communication reveals indeed prima faoie v.folation of e
1
Charter.
"' n
'- •
' s~
p..u l.)I\
...~
<5
;·
>
u
I
<..,
'V4,._ i1
p.N...,
,\,o'T ET
I
1
des droits de /'Homme and RADDf-1O, Collectif des veuves et ayantsDroit, Association mauritanienne des droits de
/'Homme I Mauritania, https://www.achpr.org/sessions/descions?id=114
7 Communication 321/2006 - Law Society of Zimbabwe et al v Zimbabwe (2013),
https ://www.ach pr, orgtsession s/descions?id=211
15
95.
With regards to the ratione temporis condition covered by articles 638 and 659 of the
Charter, the Commission does not observe any challenges in determining its jurisdiction
on the matter. Indeed, the alleged violations started in 2016, while the State of Cameroon
ratified the Charter in 1989.
96.
The jurisprudence mentioned above specifies that the prayers submitted by Complainants
should be compatible with the objectives and principles enshrined in the African Union
Constitutive Act. In this regard, pursuant to Article 3(b), the objective of the Union shall
be to " defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States".
97.
However, among the prayers, the Complainants appeal to the Commission to issue
Provisional Measures requesting the government of la Republique du Cameroun to pull
out its heavy military presence and close down its numerous military outposts strewn all
over the territory of the former UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons.
98.
The challenge with the aforementioned prayer lies in the very spirit of the request. The
analysis of the same would lead to the interpretation that the Republique du Cameroun
and the UN Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons are two different sovereign States,
in which case, one is subject to military occupation. In this regard, the prayer questions the
unity, territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the country, as the Complaints' request
challenges the independence of the Republique of Cameroun.
99.
Therefore, the Commission finds that the prayer contravenes article 3(b) of the Constitutive
Act, which as a consequence, is not in harmony with Article 56(2) of the Charter as it
pertains to the compatibility with the Constitutive Act. In conclusion, the Commission
finds that the conditions of Article 56 (2) have not been satisfied.
Disparaging or insulting language (Article 56 (3))
100. Article 56 (3) requires that Communications 'are not written in disparaging or insulting
language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of
African Unity'.
101. In the view of the Commission, as identified in its jurisprudence, article 56 (3) is governed
by two main principles. Firstly, in its analysis, the Commission ought to .JJalfll\~e ·the
aforementioned Article with the Complaint's freedom to clearly express theh- 'gtiev--ant ~s. \.~
Secondly a comparison needs to be drawn on the basis of the threshold/set by the I<'
Commission in its jurisprudence, with regards to what constitutes disparaging language.
8
Article 63
1. The present Charter shall be open to signature, ratification or adherence of the member states of the Orgarization
of African Unity.
2. The instruments of ratification or adherence to the present Charter shall be deposited with the Secretary General of
the Organization of African Unity.
3. The present Charter shall come into force three months after the reception by the Secretary General of the
instruments of ratification or adherence of a simple majority of the member states of the Organization of African Unity.
9
Article 65
For each of the States that will ratify or adhere to the present Charter after its coming into force, the Charter shall take
effect three months after the date of the deposit by that State of its instrument of ratification or adherence
16
102. In the first instance, the Commission held in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and
the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa / Zimbabwe, that "In
determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting and whether it has
dampened the integrity of the judiciary, or any other State institution, the Commission has
to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and
intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer or body and
whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any
reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on [sic] the institution.
The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and
bring it into disrepute. To this end, Article 56(3) must be interpreted bearing in mind
Article 9(2) of the African Charter which provides that "every individual shall have the
right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law" 10.
103. In the second instance, beyond setting the principle in the above-mentioned jurisprudence,
the Commission has elucidated in Communication 435/ 12 - Eyob B. Asemie v the
Kingdom of Lesotho, that," Although ... ... the Complainant's statements are of a nature to
tarnish the image of the state and its institutions, it is important to note that these are
merely the Complainant's perceptions and honest opinion, cast in plain language, of the
State and its institutions in the circumstances of his case. It is also important to note that a
Communication alleging human rights violations by its very nature should be expected to
contain allegations that reflect negatively on the State and its institutions" 11 .
104. In the sam e manner, the Commission went as far as indicating in Communication Uhuru
Kenyatta and William Ruto (represented by Innocence Project Africa) v. Republic of Kenya,
that " the Complaint contains expressions such as: "Sickening"; "Charade"; "the
Respondent is part of the ploy"; "trample under"; "fishing expedition"; "demonization"
which in the view of the Commission are disparaging and insulting" .1 2
105. The Respondent State argues that the complainant's insistence in accusing the Government
of being at the origin of enforced disappearances, w ith statements such as "persistent
rumour indicating that some had been killed and buried in mass graves in the vicinity of
Yaounde" or the m ere fact that, in its perception, no evidence has been provided to justify
such allegations constitutes disparaging language.
/
t'• ~ ~
106. However, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Commission, as priocdt p;ionst,:at~d,
the mere fact that a perception and opinion are expressed by the Complainant as to the
author of grave human rights violations, allegedly suffered by the members of its
community cannot be considered disparaging. Additionally, the very terms used by the
latter to express such perception cannot be considered offensive as per the threshold
1
°
Communication No.293104: Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for
Human Rights and Development in Africa I Zimbabwe (para 5 1,52),
https: / N,iww,achp[.cug/Q.U blicLDJLc umentLtile1.Engli.s.hL.a.cilllI.43_2.93_Q.4_eng. lllif
11
Communication 435/ 12 - Eyob B. Asemie v the Kingdom of Lesotho
(58), https://www.acbpt mgLQ_ublic/Document/file/Englifill/acbpr1 6eos decis 435_.l2_Je.s..o..1ruLeng,.rutl
12
Communication 464/14 - Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto (represen ted by
Innocence Project Africa) v. Republic of Kenya (para 18),
17
established by the Commission. Indeed, in as much as these allegations tarnish the image
of the Government, which in any case of alleged human rights violations is bound to
happen, the Commission sees a challenge in determining that statements made by the
Complainants aim at unlawfully and intentionally violate the dignity, reputation or
integrity of a judicial officer or body.
107. Further, the consideration of a complaint by the Commission is a process. Findings
pertaining to the analysis of the alleged violated articles occur in the Merits phase. In that
regard, evidence of the alleged violations will be considered then. Therefore, at this stage,
the State's argument as to the absence of evidence constitutes an insult to the Government
cannot be determined. ConsequentJy, the Commission finds that the conditions of Article
56 (3) have been satisfied.
News disseminated through mass media (Article 56 (4))
108. Article 56 (4) requires that Communications ..are not based exclusively on news
disseminated through the mass media...
109. The Commission observes that, based on the submissions of the Complainant and primary
evidence provided, the facts and violations alleged in this Complaint are in harmony with
relevant reports established by trustworthy sources. Indeed, the present facts, resulting
from the situation of instability in 2016 were noted by the ACHPR, though a Press Release,
condemning the alleged violations. Further, the Human Rights Council recognized the
existence of the Anglophone crisis in its 39th session. Furthermore, International Crisis
Group equally evidenced the existence of the Cameroon crisis. The Commission observes
that this matter is widely known and established, and that therefore, it is not solely based
on information resulting from mass media.
110. In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the conditions of Article 56 (4) have
been satisfied.
Exhaustion of local remedies (Article 56(5))
111. Article 56(5) of the Charter requires that Communications "are sent after exhausting local
remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged".
112.
113.
13
International Justice Resource Center, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
in the African Human Rights System, https://ij rcenter.org/exhaustion-of-dornestic-remediest
18
from acting as a court of first instance rather than a body of last resort. Three major criteria
could be deduced from the practice of the Commission in determining this rule, namely:
the remedy must be available, effective and sufficient. A remedy is considered available if
the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect
of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint" 14.
114. In regard to the above stated, the availability of remedies lies on the ability of the
Complainant, under the specific circumstances of the case, to have access to national
courts. Further, the effectiveness of the remedies should imply that; the said availability is
followed by a reasonable prospect of a fair, impartial and successful trial. In other words,
to what extent would it be reasonable for a complainant to seize national courts under
given circumstances. Furthermore, beyond availability and effectiveness, national courts
should grant sufficient remedies, so as to truly redress the alleged violations. In as much
as the burden of exhausting local remedies is incumbent upon the Complainants, the
Commission holds that the three above-mentioned conditions must be fulfilled, in order to
declare a Complaint inadmissible for not complying with Article 56(5).
115. In this particular case, the Complainants allege that since December 2016, there has been
massive, indiscriminate and arbitrary arrests, disappearances of suspects in Southern
Cameroon. October 2016 marks the beginning of the alleged Cameroon's Anglophone
crisis. In its press release, the Commission stated that "since October 2016, the human
rights situation in the Republic of Cameroon has continued to worsen following brutal
crackdowns on legitimate and peaceful protests by lawyers, teachers and members of civil
society of the English-speaking regions of North-West and South-West" 15.
116. In its 39th session in 2018, the Human Rights Council expressed its concern and therefore
recognition of the instability in the State of Cameroon, namely with regards to the Southern
region. The council stated that it "strongly condemn reports of the killing and abductions
of teachers and students and the destruction of schools by armed elements in the northwest and south-west regions. These acts of intimidation are preventing thousands of
children from attending school" 16
117. In the same spirit, the International Crisis Group developed a narrative on the so called
"Anglophone crisis" in its analysis. It stated that "the current crisis is a particularly
worrying resurgence of an old problem. Never before has tension around the Anglophone
issue been so acute. The mobj !iz~tio.n ,9Ylawyers, teachers and students starting in October
2016, ignored then put doww'B'y, the...g vernment, has revived identity-based movements
17
which date back to the 1~70s.•("
'/ )
("l.
14
r,u-11 "
-
I
Communication 147/95- 149/96: Sir Da,.;,b a,K':Jawara Ga~bia {The),
bttps://www.achpr.org/sess.iQ.ns/descioos1id=;J. l l
'
15
ACHPR, Press Release on the human rights situation in Cameroon,
h ttp.s ://www .a.cllP_r...Qfg/_ru..e.s.sre te..as..eldelail1id::.6.3.
16
39th session of the Human Rights Council, 10 September 2018,
bttps://www.ohchr.orgLenLstatements/201 a109139tt,-sessioo-buman:r:igbts-counci_l
17
Cameroon's Anglophone Crisis at the Crossroads, 2 AUGUST 2017, http_s;L/www.crisjsgi:oup.QJg/afri..c.aLcentralafrica/cameroon/250-cameroons-anglophone-crisis-crossroads
19
118. The Commission observes that, following the above demonstration, a generalized
atmosphere of instability and fear of persecution can be detected in the Southern region of
Cameroon between the moment the alleged violations started and the present time. In such
environments and specific circumstances, the very same citizens whose lives are said to be
in such danger would naturally be impeded to seek protection from the authorities who
have allegedly been identified as perpetrators of the said violations. The Commission
therefore holds that, in such circumstances, remedies are deemed to be unavailable.18
119. In light of the above, the Commission observes that lack of availability of remedies would
automatically imply absence of effectiveness and sufficiency. In conclusion, the
Commission finds that the conditions of Article 56 (5) have been satisfied.
Submission within a reasonable period (Article 56(6))
120. Article 56(6) of the Charter requires that Communications are "submitted within a
reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted or from the date the
Commission is seized of the matter". The principle herewith established by the Charter is
dependent upon the requirements provided for in number five (5) of article 56.
Considering that local remedies were deemed not available, based on the Commission's
analysis, the reasonable period factor does not apply. Therefore, the Commission finds that
the conditions of Article 56 (6) have been satisfied by default.
Previously settled matters (Article 56 (7))
121. Article 56(7) of the Charter requires that Communications shall only be considered if they
"do not -deal with cases which have been settled by these States involved in accordance
with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organization
of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter".
122. The Commission's position on the above principle has been well elaborated and elucidated
in its jurisprudence with regards to two main conditions. On one side, with regards to the
nature of the organisation; the Commission understands that Article 56(7) is not satisfied
if the same Complaint is submitted to a Human Rights body19 for consideration. On the
other side, as regards the nature of the decision, the Commission understands that the body
must "take a decision that addresses the concerns, including the remedy sought by the
complainant... [and that] it is not sufficient that the matter is simply discus u\?Y.Ni;\1_,e e
0
bodies". 20
.,,,. 0 "" ~~1AR1Ar "'<
,o X,,C,
~
"'"'
::,.
Cj
123. This implies that where the complainant submits a complaint to the Co .-· ·s ion, but tH
complaint has already been submitted to another body with a human Toh mand-a e, i
"
M tQ:-- 0
automatically renders the complaint inadmissible. Furthermore, whe '-th~:, mmia'
r ·
?
t,
'-1/J' . _ _ . Q" I..,
.Sio¾ A► Riv1'1t-'· ,,_~-:i.'
(
Communication 318106 - Open Society Justice Initiative v. Cote d'Ivoire,
~ ~o,.,...,E E1 o(.'>
h t t Q ~W.JJ ch lll,Jllgls.e.S Si On SL.c.tasci..o JS'.lid = 22.8.
--19
Communication 279/03-296/05 - Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions
(COHREJ v Sudan (2009) paras 104, 105, https://www.achpL.QJ:gLse.ssions/descions1ict=1.9Q
2
°Communica tion 301105 -Haregewoin Gabre-Selassie and IHRDA (on behalf offormer Dergue Officials) v Ethiopia
(2013) ACHPR, para 117, https:// www.acl1pr.org/se ssions/descions?id=242
18
~'"
20
submits a complaint on which a decision has already been taken by a human rights body,
the latter must have addressed the concerns, including the relief.
124. Nevertheless, a possible scenario is that of a complaint which is, a priori, substantially
identical to the one submitted to the Commission for analysis. In this respect, the European
Court of Human Rights has a wealth of case law and analysis on the issue. Indeed, in its
Article 35 para 2 b, the Convention provides that "The Court shall not deal with any
application submitted under Article 34 that is substantially the same as a matter that has
already been examined by the Court'1. It is therefore necessary to understand what the
Court means by "same as a matter that has already been examined".
125. In its jurisprudence, the Human Rights Committee has shown that in order for a case to be
considered identical to the same complaint previously filed with the Court and therefore
inadmissible, the Court examines whether the two applications brought before it by the
applicants relate essentially to the same persons, the same facts and the same complaints21 .
In Nobili Massuero v. Italy, the European Court stated that "as regards the first limb of
the Government's objection, the Court recalls that, under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the
Convention, it does not deal with an application under Article 34 which is essentially the
same as a case already examined, provided that it does not contain any new relevant
information. The Court notes that application no. 30531/96, although relating to the same
set of proceedings, was lodged by a different applicant, namely Mr Francesco Nobili
Massuero, the father of the present applicant. Consequently, the present application cannot
be regarded as being substantially tl1e same of the previous one" 22
126. In this particular case, the Respondent State alleges that " the central claim of the present
Communication around which the other allegations of rights violations are built is the right
to self-determination. In that regard; it is alleged that the Commission has deliberated on
the matter several times". The State concludes that, the matter has already been settled by
the Commission in Commw1ication No. 266/ 03, and therefore, the Commission should
deem the same inadmissible.
127. However, as opposed to the above, mentioned Communication, despite the fact that right
to self-determination may seem to allegedly be central to the claim, the Commission
observes no particular hierarchy to the claims pertaining to a Complaint in relation to
rights provided for in the Charter. Indeed, the Complainants allege violations to other
rights, resulting from a situation of instability which began in 2016, seven (7) years after
the Commission rendered its decision in Communication No. 266/03. In this regard, the
Commission finds it challenging to conclude that the current complaint is s~, ,8n..the
,,; ,.o~ • , , i
same facts.
,p's(.cRfTA.1s·,./l\to
.,'<>
r ,.<
21
by Mr. Kum Bezeng and (seventy-five) 75 Others. The Commission observes that, the
current complaint does not involve the same persons.
129. Furthermore, in as much as the articles alleged to have been violated are the same, which
in fact, is the case in many instances, the Commission observes that the complaints are not
the same. Indeed, the current complaints, as mentioned above, are a result of a specific
situation that began in 2016. In this regard, the Commission finds it difficult to consider a
substantial similarity in the complaints.
130. On the basis of the above demonstration, the Commission finds th
substantially the same as a matter that has already been examine
the Commission finds that the conditions of Article 56 (7) have bee
' , • t is no t
----.... ~~refore,
,..
(<1.1
G
:t
Decision of the African Commission on Admissibility
131. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peo
i.
ii.
Declares the Communicatiqn inadmissible; and
Notifies the parties of its decision in accordance with Rule 118(4) of its Rules of
Procedure.
22