uut;u:;1y11 c11Vt:IUfJt: ru. roo£o£t,'.:·.:>.:>
10AC"RPofi
:j
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
COMMUNICATl 0N 461/13
1
'
I
Eskinder Nega Fenta and ,11,.pt Alemu
(represented by Me ia ·L~'flillJl@tence
I ;1/rf'\\::.. • ✓)J:r;./:,,•• "-t;:\'.\'',t:•···,·,1 ....
Initiative, Freedom N~ t·'"'"a q:~ l::if ,..~oln1f Inn)
it
1
1
icf::t.·
'\._
·ri·i.:<
·,
··>,
Republic of
Adopted by the:
,,
.African CommissioYa 6Pi.\
.During the 7:r-1 Ordi
'Rights
,
,:virtually. from 19 Jta.fy ro 2 AttgPJ,'!lt 2022
I
I
nO-g,T><>'the
!l.frican
I lninn
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
31 Biji'lo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region
i
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
,
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 o cs
-"'~.e~.
ACHPR
,
\
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Decision of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples' Rights on the Merits ! .
Communication 461/13
Es~inder Nega Fenta and
Reeyot Alemu (represented by MediJ::,i,:ri,,,~,~gal Defence
Initiative, Freedom Now and Lincol §,;Jj'if·ta;,jj]\.the Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
{
Summary of the Complaint:
't·'
t,, "
: ____
_ _ ~~
-
_
,
4
1. The Secretariat of the African Cpi§missiortIJ;:gg, ~~}nan and Peq~le~' Rights (the
/~;,{{~/:-, ~:-.:.~~.,_
!
'•'.,:~/{:;;);ir:?tr·
~J?"'
Secretariat), received a Complaint ot(}1i,.N~vemlf\ 013 from Esl<inder Nega Penta
"</i
\ft_\'>·:-. :
'
;;~'.i,i:!:; !s
and Reeyot Alemu (the £i!~.t~~nd second'\9?,Wplainarit~;i~~'~E~ctively), represented by
, --;.t '',
·i . ~\·.>-.
'"\•·"<t\! .>.-.
1,t~/i:)f}y'
Media Legal Defence {:p.itiat1~~;~~reedqµl'No½7,,apd Lin9ofns Inn. Both Complainants
are journalists in
jffiltffu':"· "•fi~t~, •! •,;tpl.,
1
2. The Complaint,i~.,submitted against fh~;;F~deral D~mocratic Republic of Ethiopia (the
7;tharter on Human and Peoples' Rights
Respondent stlt~~i. State Party to th~
if}~_~t.
\}
•
.\ . . ·,·~.
_/,✓/1
\t:;
•••• 1
JW
:
(the African Charf" ·,~
-;.-~ - -.
~~lt,1
3. The\F}rst_Complainant 1 JlE!g~s that);iW was atrested on 14 September 2011 on suspicion
'
~ .: -; ,:>:,'•,, '
''d\i.i ;;\t;}J:;r~'.:J~]\~{;,~/
I
of terr~fism;,;;\;i;y;~, ..(5) days"''~fer'' publishing an online column criticising the 2009
✓,_-·
,',
.,
,·•
I
Proclarria~ion, .:dn:·:::~~H}errorism
,, ~ ,. '
,·
~-'J
--~\:.::
No 1652/2009
:, ..
(The
2009
Anti-Terrorism
'
Proclamat19µ), suggesting that it was being psed to target journalists and critics of the
Governmenf:-J:Je, was initially detained in Maekelawi, the Federal Police Criminal
1
Investigation ?ti;on, and was denied accesJ to legal counsel and not allowed contact
i
with family members. The First ComplainaI).t avers that he was kept in detention until
I
,,r~.ot\ ~-:v•A~~
10 November 2011 when he was formrlly charged with ]~jJatj;!il,guRiuw~ s
.
lh~
,__......___
o,.
I
- ~
;.!
I
~
I CJ.
Cl!.
:;/I?
~ n
ct'?,
I
I
1
I
._=~ ~-~ ',
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia ratified the African C::harter on 15 June 1998..
llPage
······· · !
~--t
~
()
<:O,t,"l.,.tl.sc~;~-o~<tv<c,&:>
The African Commission on~m11[!. lram'-.::~-=-R~t~.EI s'
~Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombe North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-baniul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.intiO·o. a
Cll
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
,,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
,
provisions of the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation and the 2004 Ethiopian Criminal
Code.
I
I
4. The Complainant further avers that he was ent~nced to 18 years imprisonment on 13
1
July 2012 after a judgment of the Federal High ~ourt on the 27 June 2012. On 2 May
I
I
2013, he appealed to the Federal Supreme CCourt. His sentence was upheld although
the court dismissed the charge of leading a tbrrjrist organisation under Article 7(2) of
,
... ; ,~----~-
-..
the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation.
5. The First Complainant filed an appeal in the
~.~~i,on Di'yi~ton
of the Federal
.:.'.:,d
'<{t.ttt· •. •'•,.
Supreme Court on 9 May 2013 but subsequertlM::i{p,e-nd~f{;'J •·t,~~:t"'•,. ·
/·i
<i·\'.it.::j ·: :~~-~:-\'T'\'i~~l~,-\
-:, _ '·~•
a hearing of the appeal. The deadline fq:(fjl,ing if~~aring r· 9}:1:~~t expire·
- •
; ·
• .~- t~;;~,."';~;ht)t
July 2013.
✓:,·fiF-
'\;\ ;- •'
'It;k,
1'·-'>':t·<-.;:t:,_
,,
-
'
'"0;;-;s.-~\
6. The Second Complainant avers ~p:iit;h~ was arf~~fe~ on 21 June 20.J]:' shortly after she
• ~; -.,'. 1-~~•-. :
,,. ;~;·_::·~rt~
published an article in thejpdepend ,,,j;\\W:,~wspap~r/J:ii!eh, criticising the Ethiopian
"~;:J~};:::~\-
~1'?f}
-,~~-~:,· ,·,>-·_--,~:;"
Government's plan to bqilm ., droelecJ!Jcfey~and its''~s,~_otiated fund-raising plans.
\\'
••
-•-:<<.:;/'/
0
•o•~J;Ji:;_'f1:~,'"
'~.,
She was detained _i1,1 rvf~~~elaw1;,;,, J,Mf~l1y i~ solit~,~~:;;~pfilinement and without access
1
to visitors. She wa~ charg;~lwith -ii~Xg}i,pg Artid§i,:32(1) (a), 38(1) and 684 (1) and (2)
;: •_·
'"<~){~J:' .i,;i;.:}:,., :
,,
of the Ethiopiati:J=riminal Code and A'.rt!!f1~§;4, 7 and 9 of the 2009 Anti-Terrorism
\::~ ·:,\
-;:.
'1h!~P,..
Proclamation. • ·, t
,,
,:,::Y;
I
\:;>.'t>>h
i-·i
7. Orn~:tlJe 26 January)]~012, the Sec:Snd C~mplainant was sentenced to 14 years
"--~< ,., '.:·_· ,. _
\~F:'.;i~/1'.:"t...
_.. ,:.~_\/
impri~o~J!Q1 and a fine·of;}9;QQ0.,Ethiopiah Birr, the equivalent of 1,870 USD. On 31
'•~}\·:. . ., iti~f;i;t;S~) (t·::
•vc,r• ,. ·".,.
-~ ~
1
1
:
July 20]2, shi.tapp'ea!~µ before the Federal Supreme Court which reduced her sentence
l<:_;./, •-·:",·:.~t1~f;::::'.:?;:~t~:_;~
·1;•·:;,
to 5 yearsi':>,Jille Seco11cl/1§:dmplainant was acquitted of 2 out of the 3 charges brought
~
~
•
against her'.;;fyn 8 January 2013, the Cassation Division of the Federal Supreme Court
\;:~f~
,\,
I
upheld the de~lp,jon on appeal and maintain~d the charge of participating in a terrorist
,{f'
organisation.
8. The Second Complainant further claims th,~t in early 2012, she was diagnosed with
tumours (fibroadenoma) in both breasts. She underwent an operation~~~
I
I
i~ .
/,f,/ ~u· fi;,.~ "'
(.?/,,;~
1
1
2 IP a g c
'""'''"''
Afrk;anrr~'))
Unio:1 \iv.
•
-
-
-
"11"
"'(C':
0
f ~\
•
• h out bemg
• a11owe d t~me
·'
to return to prison
wit
to recover. A con
I
":i
t %'3' '--,\U-UA
~
~ 'f
_-;,
~ ';.1s1t W~§..8'/
uo\
ui
~
& c,, /
/
The African Commission "o'b Hunia_r;i and·P~pl~s',_,~ J/
-~ <;,,, -4 1-"R1c;,.Righ,t~-1/
,
',
A,
"-'Q
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, R6'm~1North£01Strict; •
West Coasf"Regien:'Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:fachpr.au,int/0 0 a
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
scheduled for October 2013 but it had not taken place.
9. The Second Complainant submits that 1s: mqnths after her surgery, the surgical
I
!
stitches had not been removed. She bled re~lirly from her left breast and suffered
severe pains. She claimed she suffered grJat ~iscomfort and displayed symptoms
indicating that her health was in jeopardy.
10. The second Complainant made a request for Provisional Measures to the end that the
Ethiopian Government should have her exabi,ed bI,,,£ii~d~~dent medical expert
in order to determine the best medical treatbeJt fdf(lj.~1\ Furt~~i~ore, she requested
I
\ ,.... ,
,':'f'._'\,
/:_</,
•
that the Government of Ethiopia be urged :~~t~~~Mte th:a{},~5!):.:.~~~i,q~l _treatrµent is
_.,(/t~~:?t::::t;.~:_t,:t};)~?'.t:~?}..
provided to her without delay.
_,, _"
•, ';_,..,v,, ' ::
~---<,', ,;
'\~f;,._'.
11. The Complainants assert that t~t'.:2009l;ii~rti-T~f~,brism Pr0,~lc\n:t9tion and its
subsequent application and im:8!¢~~f!~tion ~i~~:~,(~~lted in a si~i~ant number of
prosecutions of dissenting _ybices ir/E!R(qpia. Tff~lf;
~ ·,.>~t'.. -_
',,,·,\: {'.t},,,__
·-t:,
constitutes a serious or µia~~J-M~ violatimfq(:t1.:uman
.
~
.-<:'Ai?']j~:}:--
and defacto.
mplainants submit that this
(Y
-
.-r}- -- __
aV,;~fp~oples' rights both dejure
""
Articles alleged to ha'LJ,~/been violated
12. The Complainams
allege violation of
r:•;,,.•-,
Respondent Stal:?\, _
<\-.
Prayers
)~!t
<:·::i\1;~);1;:•,:-_
\
,,/~;
t
./~Y;Ji
--,\1;;'.::;i. _ 1~:·\-.
. ·, ., • . • • .. ,.
13. The Co~pl_a,ipants reque~f0,~~~Iit£ffcan Cotjunission on Human and Peoples' Rights
;
\
'•~"
··,.:
:. .
I
., •• ,,.!::,).:,u:•,'
(the Comrois~i.qn)'to:.
'\\
',._,_:t~- ·,,.. ':'~:-'._~:~r:--::>: :_ ::•·". ·>
~.a
a. Refer the matter fo ~~~African Court on r-Iuman and Peoples' Rights in accordance
·,,.;
·.•
....
with Artf~le 58 of the African Charter .and Rules 84 (2) and 118 of its Rules of
Procedure;p:~:;alternatively.
b. Draw the -;~ttention of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the
i
African Union (AU) to the situation in ~ccordance with Article 58 of the African
I
Charter and Rules• 84 (2) and 118 of its Rules
of Procedure.
I
~~·~~
.,, \'\\}N!Alll 4,VO
O""
I
R
p
Consider the Complainants' Complaintlas an individual C0mi;ilaTht\ft.cc~ •
Iii~ ~-C'>.. ~ \ce
with Article 55 of the African Charter a~d Rule 93 of its R;0,~s cff ~~--~e~ure~ t
Ii
f\ ~\,·y.? \ 0~ a1
i
C.
I
I
I
•
31 Page
Af;l~nlf&S:)
Unionl/;,J,,J
••••••• •
•• •
• ·-·
• ••• ••• ·-· •••
•• •••• • •• • •
... ••••• • ;
:
~
.,.,,M'
,
_:r.
The African Com ls~'n,on Hifi;'::n-a~fople '
~ ·-:r.s:, " ~ "'.&R1'1-fts
31 Bijilo Anne ._i,.,_a¼P1J~f(d'moo~t~ljct,
• W~,sf'©o13_st~~~iB9rGambia
Phone: (220) 230 43~1?ax~(:z;.20;-441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/O Cltra
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts'
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
1
d. Authorise a hearing before the Commis*on concerning the request for referral to
I
the African Court under Rule 99 (1) 9f its Ru,les of Procedure;
'
I
e. Order that Provisional Meas-ures be ta'.keni by the Government of Ethiopia in
relation to the situation of the s·econd cdmpiainant;
f. Find that the Respondent State has vidlated Articles 7,9 and 16 of the African
Charter;
/<.' -·.~}:',,,,,.__
g. Order Ethiopia to make reparations to the Compl,ain,H!tt{)mnsisting of, among
/i-<-~,/{
\(}}.{~~
others, lost income,
lost profits and compensation:for
emoti~hal
suffering;
.
I
"._.,. ••
' ,
h. Declare that the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Pr?c
,r1:~l~~n'vi¢}~~~s,/E{~i9pi~~s o_~li9ations
'the
under international law anp. in parti11:~J~r ii~i,ij~x· ·gatiorts__ :fo,__~es;~d
::;ight to
,_,:{ ' :t
;_
'-,,\/,
''
freedom of expression, the righ!;',fo a •• trial
tl the obligati:9B' to generally
.i):f<
\·:.-'/'/> ✓
I
respect human rights in the q;>n{ext,of anti...
~-\•:..->?.1>\
•• ,,
I
··;,
'
i. Order Ethiopia to bring> the 2009;;}Ar1ti-Terro "' , Proclamation in line with
,.,~•\·
~,_·
l··
·\t.'P'·:•::..
Ethiopia's obligatiOI11' -~n4l?~ internatioHitnaw_ anci\h:·p1~ticular its obligations to
·1:,
·:)",:,:"::
..,, . ,,_ I'\; \\,
,¥·
respect the rig1:,t}8:t~;t~r,dom·0,f,:e~~:ression, tne,_fi!!;!}t::fo a fair trial and the obligation
(~;>,.,..
",::_fff?.-~
.,,,.J~lt".
,
;_,.".,<"?···
to generally ,p~spect human rigRts.iJ?t~he conte,xfof anti-terrorism measures.
~i
Procedure
':
,,~}t1?i>'
•
1
,14. On 12 Novemb;!/lJ, Pl3, the Secreti~iat r~"6~ived the Complaint and acknowledged
rec~ip_t
of
th~'-\,,·c1,:rp.e
·~r:(r;:1,:>t},, . -
\ t~ .!; ; .. -
on
il
November
2013
by
a
letter
Ref:
-.i-"r::fFJ!
ACHfR/~8~M/ETH1/Rf:3.,fillii1J.:11ated 19 rovember 2013.
~ '•
15. At its l~,tl; Ext:ri9fa4µary Session held from 7 to 14 March 2014 in Banjul, The Gambia,
the Afri~ih Gtifi~i~sf&d:tdrisidered the said Communication and decided to be seized
'."-'''
.,-
.,_;.
,•
I
of it. It also\~.~ued Pro~isional Measures to the effect that the Government of Ethiopia
·, ' \
,
I
should have t):i:fSecond Complainant exa~ned by an independent medical expert
without delay in order to determine tJ:i.e best medical treatment and have it
I
administered to her. However, the Commi~sion refused to grant the request to refer
the matter to the African Court on Huma~ and Peoples' Rights and to hold an oral
hearing for this purpose because Ethiopia ~as not ratified the Pr:0,~J-1 . ter
•
,
tf!,,O fr,C,,
O.,o
on the Establishment of the Court. The Commission also refusr.{lto~ gr~e\eq~ 1t
to draw the attention of the Assembly
4 IP a g e
..~<~~~-~~i~,
A~~~~~)
~f (
oi
1
0 - _) •~ \~
The African Com!\ssiou,on Human@nd e,Jp1eiih
1
~~ ' \ " ~" /._, .~ig!J~
31 Bijilo Ann ~aydl:lt;i-~bmbo-=Norinf□ isf~G1t,
1
~est. ctastr8egl6~G~b'la
Phone: (220) 230~16J:'.'P.~~~!'l~)105 04
Email: au~aAjal@africa•union.org
https;/achpr.au.inl/0 0 Eli
ACHPRl
e
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Heads of State and Government of the AU in accordance with Article 58 of the African
Charter because the Complaint did not reveal the existence of a series of serious or
I
'
I
massive violations of human and peoples' r~ghtf.
16. By a letter Ref: ACHPR/COMM/461/13tETH/360/14 dated 18 March 2014 the
Secretariat notified the Complainants about 1he
Commission's
decision on seizure and
I
.
provisional measures and invited therrf to present written submissions on
admissibility within two months of notification~
/i;r(1Jz,rtfr'::>:\
,1:,!?r
I
·t;:rt_
17. By a Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/46~/13/iE(l)~j0?1/14'•~~ted 18 March 2014,
the Respondent State was informed about th~,~J:>:qµni~~i~~J~,_?,~'!§:iq,ri 1:9,11~eizgi,:e and
.-~ :·,.~·~:.:::'.;·--~' ', //;-,,
·c~{~t;;-tit
~' w•~·~t-,~rit~i~:·~{~{:~2;::::n;;;_/
Provisional Measures and the request: Jqt the°' C\>~plairia;tit~,,, to pres·ent"· written
submissions on admissibility within/~~: rht"rlth,s of ~~~ficatio~: ' '.;}![\, 0 5>
~ ~\: .' /~'.>> ·.
,,/1}[\
1
·~~~rnq~)/
:,~,'~'rr>
18. On 28 May 2014, the Secretari,c16 t~'.¢~ived tRe;; qorhplainants' S4omissions on the
';~,J.::?\1/1,
y
-~~·,~~'.~~-..
Admissibility of the Comm}Jnication;\~\~fh was·•cfti,1y, acknowledged by letter Ref:
•<'.:t~~:it~);\,
/<ti~;,.
'~,<~,:::.•>>-~./A')
ACHPR/COMM/ 461/131/EmJ:{/935/13,,~at~~9{;,JO
May 2Q11:"
1
~•t.,,
'
\t;~j{~,~.:
1
1;/;{':J!f
''<
T@f}.:~(> '-
)>/
19. By a Note Verbale R~{:.:A:CtJPR/~~M,-r/ 461/13¼}~;ijf;,936/13 dated 30 May 2014, the
i:: ·.:,-~"·
., "'-.·\••\,
""<:f{;:~?:t, ~
i
<i\llH::~;:;.f
Complainants' p"»7ritten submissidift'$,t;i\9n admi~,sibility were transmitted to the
"s';f:~·:,,, : •. .,
:-·:
Respondent Staht with a request for tRl:i~~~H~r to submit its written observations on
.; __, :),
,.~
·t'.·:1>:'
admissibility with,in,:.-"two months of riotifi~::'i(tion.
'
'
':
\c, ,·,.·'....
20. On\Jt.and 23 Sept~Il}Q~~ 2014,
•-~;:;-:,,::\·?:l:}1 ... ,
•;,.;;·,,:.•,' .. ,,
i·\
t9~ Secretariat received the Observations of the
<'J.~i
I
Resp'c;iV:ij~Bt:;§t~te on the ~A'<1:1:1i~sJbility Submissions of the Complainants, which was
duly ~~f<~~~i}d~~q,xb,;y a Note. ;erbale Ref: A~HPR/COMM/ 461/ETH/1673/14 dated
"\f\. ~--.f~/~ ··~:.\·;:~ttt:i.itrr,;·iJJ>
30 Septemg~ff;2014. "··f;f1f[/
21. By a letter ~~f: ACHPR/COMM/ 461/13/ETH/1672/14 dated 30 Septen:iber 2014 the
written Obse1~5tfons of the Respondent State on the Admissibility Submissions was
·"'"'
I
/,,
I
transmitted to the Complainants for their reply within one month of notification.
22. By a Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/4<,1/13/ETH/1673/14 dated 3Q,,Be.f!tember
,i
..
,.~~
2014, the Respondent State was informed that its written 01,se:i;.v:'af:fo:ns 1§.,
i
·11. ~'? ~--~ ~
admissibility had been transmitted to the Complainants to prese ;~he1rre:p.l:~J-.:wwithin~•
one month of notification.
:
5 ~
%_, \ \
Africantcie
Union\:S:¥
(((+...-, ".,
1
~~:1
r,.U-UA ,11
0
I
.',~C¥::;,~~.l%
1i )
I
:
,
51Page
. u
1
,_.
11.1
~ ~ :
! (/)
~,5',_......._...,... ~":) '?
I'<:>
«t
"a
-
c!
The African Commission ~w/ntand:Peb''?,L:l'
. ~-4iME ET ~iQ_!lt
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, KoniB&~~l:J;E)fstfict,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
,
ACHPR
.,
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
23. The Secretariat did not receive any reply fro:r:n the Complainants within the one month
'
deadline granted to them and no request for: ext~nsion of time to submit the same was
''
also received.
:'
I
I
I
24. Consideration of the admissibility of the Cdnmimication was deferred during the 17th
Extraordinary Session of the Commission hlld from 17 to 28 February 2015.
25. By letter dated 26 April 2015, the cdmplainants having referred to earlier
correspondences_ inquired about the non-imrl lemen~JC>.~.--.·.···~.f~~h~':.·.r.,ovisional Measures
r· '---J,. '"-
by the Respondent State.
•
26. In
response
to
• .1
,.·~>:
<"i..-,~::),.
the
Complainan.t~;;.;-i!':·,;c.,inqiiifi~~!_,{:>§y--:~- •"--~~~er _,-> Ref:
ACHPR/ COMM/ 461/ 13/ ETH/ 777/ 15 .-i#ilJ''t~~~l¥:,20~;;\~e,-~~~;~hiriai--{Kf~rmed
/t,:::'.t''{/f >~
'j~i}/t.i
'( ." \.
the Complainants that the Commiss;on at i~~1.gJ5,;11 or~f Session held,from 21 April to
~/,; :,.
·~;\f<fX}li-\,
,:,f)?
·.
••
7 May 2015, in Banjul, The_GamJ5ia, __:d~cided to)s(?ijci a reminder ,to the Respondent
•
'·
"'<._',·;,,-:::,:,...
'\i\~t(i~+•
'
State to implement the sc1.id
Provisiqri,aI:
Measuir~s,i,,flnd
to
report
back on the
.• .. •
-:· ,· 1,
·•;;;i•'·:· ,,,
I
implementation within thltif,n¢,line reqv,i,f~~-/}o.do so."'i,·)il:fi~J;f'
• .;;~\
·":~-/')Jc..
'\ ·.>
·<:_:,~,~>-:\.
,,,{//''
27. The Commission hi:lS::;#<:>t,. receiv~,?\:-.ariy reporft@".:µa,J~)On the implementation of the
~ \i'.(\··\-,.
,,/;tt:t1.t·"'' ;, ••;:,.,,,i:i'.;;;,:~-1;;:;:.",
"\:.:-/\_/ ,'
Provisional Me~§'.ures by the Resport~ent State.
'.
_: (~{
~;<;:/: :~)>, I
28. By a letter dateqi~,2 July 2015 the Secretati~t:wqs informed by the legal Representatives
\'.i()j.~
~\,' >~:;'
i),
of the Complain~~&~, that the Secong Copi.plainant was unexpectedly released from
Prisor:t.
on the 9 Juiti~Olt§.,whilst the Yrst C~mplainant is still serving his prison term.
-,_ ., . '•.
~~-
••
29. At its,-2(.)tli''Extraordin~
· ::Fs~s•si,
". '- '~,
-• >
...
,.,·-:.,;,;{;{ff;:.~~),.';~·
\ \
I
eld from 9 to 18 April 2016, the Commission
' .. ·,_.,,.
'
considet~d artcl(c!ec\ar,ed the Communicatiqn partially admissible.
~
••
• /<
~
•:< ,, ~ ,' .' J,~-~;_.,,_,
.. ;
.
30. By a letter R~f: ACHPR/:EOMM/ 461/13/ETH/1789 /16 dated 17 November 2016 the
\_
~,/
I
Secretariat •-potified the Complainants about the Commission's decision on
Admissibility\iIJ.d invited them to present 1~ritten submissions on the Merits within
sixty (60) of the notification.
31. By a Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/ 4~1/13/ETH/1788/14 dated 17 November
I
2016, the Respondent State was inform~d about the CommisslolliS-decision on
I
~\.WIANA,\I~
Admissibility and the request for the Compiainants to present wr.it~~~stllimiss':ii ! ,on
~
,6_0j"...,, ~<,-; - - <'~
'
i ·'I?
II'
the Merits within two months of the notification.
.•fl
@),•;:::·\
\ll -e '
J
6II
a·· g e..
A.fri;;;nf.t'0;.:-,,,
· 1< •,,
Union\;;,;,:;,,
• • ••
• ••••
••••••••• • •• • · ·•· ••
• •••••• ••••••••••••• • • • •
I
.0
I
U
2
I
1
--, ( IL
".''./
__.. ,... •~
The African Com'· \si~
'°h,
Cl
G>
:C
5g! ~
o~ Huhia-h't-nJf ;,lRo~~lew
1
'"Zs• ~ -,J-'
IQ • [S
31 Bijilo ,'\nn~iayo'Ot;i,~Q~q.C?1~8rth,giis(1ct,
'~V;/ef,,tC, oast ~~ai9n"'G,fubia
-'.c2W~
Phone: (220) 230~Q~~1e'aK:1
05 04
Email: au-banTm@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
7 ~"-~~~\
ACH PR
,:- -.
f African Commission on
,,
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
I
32. On 02 June 2017, the Secretariat received the Complainants' Submissions on the Merits
1
I
of
the
Communication,
which
was
! duly
acknowledged
by
letter
Ref:
ACHPR/COMivI/ 461/13/ETH/ 403/17 da~ed 05 June 2017.
33. By a Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/461/13/ETH/402/17 dated 05 June 2017, the
Complainants' written submissions on the ~erits were transmitted to the Respondent
State with a request for the latter to subllit its wr.i·t.ten o?~~~a-tions on the Merits
within 60 (sixty) days of the notification.
• •
~
,
, . ,y
.
·;.''
34. The Secretariat did not receive the Observations oflh/i{~~ponderit State on the Merits
,:~,
0~
.
'
Submissions of the Complainants within the .~Jil?J~J~ted'p~:iic1g/ ,_(> , ,:--- __ <,,::r-'t~¼tti{t}.:~ift\-1-.
'••,
-~v<~
~ ••~-"'~.•~•,-:_.• ,~•••••~,:,~}•"~
35. On 01 November 2016, the Secretariat hacl!1feceiv'ecf-aXNotice ;of.'Motion for:Dismissal
~\\}JiL\
A(t}:.~;~{~~\~,
' Y>,"_ <i.>.'
of the Communication from the Respori'q~bt Stat~;½:[and by a<Note-:Verbale Ref:
··,~t:!f!f'.;2~- . ,./:]f/
"\ •
ACHPR/COMM/461/13/ETH/4l8_8J/J6 datecl.f:gSj'November 2Q16 the Secretariat
, ·: · ~i,
,.
:
'\ ·.,\ _f,:\i.
'
l /
'\:{
/
"'
acknowledged receipt of thE;,rotice of;:~~tfon for D ,,.: j_ssal,
"·· ,_ ~..P,·...
,•,--;.~'
"<:/-~: ~:-.
36. By a letter Ref. ACHPR/CO~~j( 461/1~/;E~~i}952/161:;~itfd 29 November 2016, the
·~.\._
,,<':..:
~<-:~~,
· ,·\-.:l;·- ·.
.:.::><,,,
Secretariat transmi_tt~.dit~,ame tci,{ff;h~\Complairialit".~.Jor their written Observations
1·~r·- 1 ,
:':'.{.'.:; •.;:';,,,;,,#••,>~•:<q;;;,l)~\-
•',\1~~{;(,,l,
I
',,<:,.,·.· \; .?
within thirty (~9) days of the n'oti{i,s.~tion and· informed the Respondent State
?}\
';;,.,' '-.\..._
I
accordingly by ;~ff!'Jote Verbal Ref. ACH~~[~OMM/ 461/13/ETH/1951/16 dated 29
.<,.
November 2016:':f~{tL,
'f+--·
\~
1
The Law oi;t,
_ A_ dmissibili~\!:.:_f_\.
_)·.•· "-· ·
\ ,,•J•¾ •
/\;
,.:{Ji?
·c
··,'t::t~li}'.;;fl\:;1:
'(i:J~:;:;}'.·>;:\ ·.
>',\
.~,;t'.}}/
I
Submissiori~?of~h~,_Complainaiit~l'gl)::,~ilmissibility
\~~\ ";·;·~ .-'.:; :.~f :\J. \·:
•-·:~·'.':¼>f.!~.t-•.,..
,
37. The Cchti}plain~~i~r~rgue that they have fuHilled all the requirements of Admissibility
?·c,.
\/\
• .,
_,,tz/;'" ",:·;;\:t/'':~?t;,\~·~y,t;f>
I
provided\~:9'9-er Articl]g$o"of the African Cfarter and submit as follows in support of
their claim:\t.
.,,
\:-<
38. Regarding Ai\t~13-l& 56 (1), the Complainant~ submit that they are legally represented
by Yakare-Ou!~ (Nani) Jansen, Patrick Griffith and Korieh Duodu, who are the authors
I
of the Complaint and this submission on aqmissibility. That they have been· de tified
I
,,
lf)AN
as Eskinder Nega, bori1 on 7 November 1469 in Addis Ababa, Ethi@:t2fa'~~~ ·
i
ft,# 4rc
• '. ,:, ·Al emu, born on 21 January J980 in Adama (Nazareth), Ethiopia. -B_@'1h o~~e,.
aire,pf i 1
1
• C::" • , i i
Ethiopian nationality and an address f9r correspondence w❖fi. th~in -· cgi~- th!if ;;: '
1, l
representatives has been provided.
7 IP a g C
·'""'""'
AJ~~g~)
:
•••
:
!
i\~_\
~~l ~ ~ §'7
The African Commission~t!_u"'!~!JJli;ft§P(!e~
~ ~~ -~ghts ,
31 BiJ"ilo Annex Layout, Kb bo.__1Nor.,muFc_
.. uD_11__:5_tfie_(,
West Coast~mbia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0-lllll
f/t~~t~~
((
AC H PR
)J African Commission on
"';,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Human and Peoples' Ri9hts
39. On Article 56 (2), the Complainants subiuit that it has been complied with, in
I
accordance
with
the
Commission's
cpmpatibility requirements.
First,
the
Complainants are Ethiopian nationals who p~rsonally suffered violations of their
1
rights as protected under the African ChaJter. Second, Ethiopia ratified the African
I
Charter on 15 June 1998 and the alleged v1•olations took place in the second half of
2011.
1
'.
,,1;·'1:~::,:t~~::,,_"
40. On Article 56 (3) the Complainants submit that no iI!,~ppropfi~t~ language has been
·
-/Y:q\;<
·.,,,\'.}-!~:Ht
used in communicating the violations of their rigl}fs'i,lpster the it.#can Charter.
I
'\,J\,,. .
,,. J
41. The Complainants also submit on Article 56 (4~,t~-~t th~:~~:ffi~~~!Cfl!!Rf.i~?i:l,sed on
1
their personal experience and not founded/exclu$iie1y
o~'h~ws>repor1:{1~:;;~-ddition
,. .
'
'
I,
they have sought to provide the <:~tmmis~~??J>':ith
•.
'
~
if much ;Jf~xa J;;documentary
•,
'"....
"·l
),. 0
'l
evidence including all court an9.6~~,gjcal d~cum~r:1-ts. which they}iad access to and
"\i::~1:~:r};:~>.
,.v
,·.: ~~ \. - -~ >..
.
reports from various humail.,:Vights orgkW#§,~tions. • ?# :,.
• {('. ~ ~ ". /~
\\i;ff ~·,
!/·}~t .
42. The Complainants. submit,,J;~~at theJ:~0~~;1nicatihn
/also complies with the
7
1
'_ _'
<t;l\:_i,:\:
.,t(?:';
i
''\t{ik:'.'(~\
i;·
'I
requirement of the_ exnau,sti9n''ojfJqc:it'reniedi'g~'.iiR,.~SPOrdance with Article 56 (5) of
,
·_.~f
"'
~~/-::'.J;'.,,
1
• • • . :·..
·d.}\t;fj}f"
the African Chai:'fer. The Complairial;{t~ argue t~~t''The First Complainant appealed
the first instanq~judgment delivere}'.~~fi'~g§tF e~eral High Court (Lid eta Criminal
- .\
(\
·{i~-.px,..
Bench) against hiµilon
13
July
2012.
On
2
May
2013, the Federal Supreme Court upheld
s.···•.
•
I
·1·,,
the·,~µ~Pment in first)ristance. The F}tst Corii.plainant decided not to request a hearing
in th~.\;i~,~sgtt~m Divi~foh.S>fth~ .Federal S4preme Court as he was convinced that it
1('.t ·,.,i,~,i(;:~J/:1~~'.~ :;~ . •
,•
I•
would nt?t con~tl§te,~r11 effective remedy of his criminal conviction. The Complainants
f
'\+~
<·{i, / •;d:;f~'.~:t:~;:),t::.\'fr·
,..
;
submit tli~t,Sl<5rnestic rr¢edies pursuant to: Article 56(5) should be exhausted, only if
'l,<?:
,{/
.!
they are available, effective and sufficient. Where domestic remedies do not meet the
aforementio~~fl:oc'i·iteria, a victim does no~ have to exhaust them before bringing a
_,,,::
I
complaint.
I
I
I
I
43. Regarding the Second ~omplainant, the ;Complainants also submit that she has
exhausted all available and effective dmpestic remedies when she. a ~ d her
• • 1 conv1c
• t·10n to t l1e F.e d era1 Supreme
I
Court, w hich pat,tJ~·
-~11~\-\~
cnmma
;~~~up..q~rao~ •er
'
I
/'\.,~ ~'()
O,o •••
conviction on 21 Julv 2012. In addition, the Cassation Divisioi1 o&t:fie Fed~·P.re:rt\; '
,,
SI Page
1
~~
r ~ )it\
\
~, ... ,,r
~ ~ '
The African Commis 'g_n ~~ ~umagi.§IQ.d,Pe1p@s' "' /
""iii. ~ :,-..,_
./R~nts •
31 Bijilo Annex ~~yout~K.9mbo,Nort!klDfst~J5:'f' •
VV~?t:%0£-'st, Regid/t ~~rnbi
Phone: (220) 230 43€l~RiX•Ht2@Q):,~0 4
Email: au-barTiul@africa:l:mlon.org
https:/achpr.au.inUO O 11'.!1
k~/s~~~
ACHPR
:i:::·,,
African Commission, on
Human and Peoples Rights
\t '
'v .·
,
Human Rights ~ur
Collective Respons1b1l1ty
Court decided negatively for her on 8 January 2013 and upheld the judgment of the
Federal Supreme Court.
44. On Article 56(6), the Complainants aver: that the complaint was filed within a
reasonable time. The decision in the First cdmp~ainant' s Appeal was delivered on the
2 May 2013 and the Second Complainant's' conviction was upheld by the Cassation
Division of the Federal Supreme Court on tle 8 January 2013. The last court decision
I
.,,-·:: ··,:·>· ..
was handed down only 5 months prior to tre filin~,(~Jhe"Co!zl~~:\int on behalf of the
First Complainant and 4 months prior to filing onJ:'>e~a.1£, of the S~¢ond Complainant.
45. The Complainants submit that, the presentl <;QtQU}~~~attbni~ll~/~it~in t!:e ss9pe of
,,i<f>Jit~:i;/·;:'/:?~·,.
"·,,, _,:
'., . .:·,
~
. "·.:::' /.
Article 56(7) because it has not been settle,gj~y an irtf~~~~tionafqt\i;-egionalmechanism.
,,:~5iff{;'~~f>·
\:l:t.~:~\
•••-~: ,_ '",
The Complainants submit that a complairyf' iled w!tr the UN··WoJ½:ing Group on
! ··,·,.,. '.t,,h
,/; :I
,J'./f
\. ?.,,-,
Arbitrary Detention regarding t,!:tf,fi~,~t C(?m' ii,h;~~t and the UNESCO Committee
~<- ,·., ,.
~-\rttt~!:'.t\1.
regarding both Complainants do not atr,.qtfnt to a s~fttement within the meaning of
,:>.
~t::;?>~,.,_¥
Article 56(7) of the Africah•q_l\a~:ter:
• ;,:;,r ,
,/<!::;";;,I?
I
iJ,._
; <-'<
< ,,;:.,
46. In light of the for;,w;?!~$trt~e 'c6~p1,rJant~ ~·tibp:iitJ~at\heir Communication meets
,(t)·"
,l,;·\:·
I
-~ · : ' ' ; , \ ,
•.
·:;./
all requirement~ffor admissibility a.119:r~spectfully<requests
the Commission make a
0
:'.)/
•~
!(
•.
>,,
I
¾
declaration of a~lnissibility and proceecktoith~}merits stage.
\if!!:\;\
µ.
\:· ~-'i //
Submissions of the Re'~p.i:>pdent State on A,dmtssibility
',i::~\>;>,\
}t:
I
47. The_ Respondent Sf~~~::,~µbmits gen~rally that the Communication does not comply
with'~he"{eq11i_remen;~~Tui~i~tg"¢'.J:frK~er Ar~icle 56 of the African Charter.
\· ' \
,.._,"~ ,,\·.\
.: •,. _-.".
¥-"":.:'.:~o~--...:;~•,,...
:
48. The Res.pondeR,f§tat~. ~ubmits that the Co~unication is improperly brought before
\·',\
,,..:/,;,:
'·"•\".. -.._; .-· ":•·-~--~..... ,_~<~)
the African goinmissio,1,!L;for two reasons - fi,rst, that it is incompatible with the African
, >;
I
Charter and,secondly, that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies. With
I
regards to the first assertion, the Complain~nts were charged with and sentenced for
''
I
the crime of t~~r~rism which is not covere~ under the African Charter. With respect
I
I
to the exhaustion of local remedies, the ~espondent State observes that the First
I
Complainant failed to present the case before the Cassation Division of the Federal
Supreme Court, claiming it would not cohstitute an effective remeijo/.~~_:ij{~trl\l
I
~o~ ~e,~
a
0'1
claim is unfounded. The Respondent State; submits that local re,~-~dfes~aHa}f\ .
I
I
9jPage
:
,
'
~8 ( ~~ \~ %
•
.., .. :r
1- "'
The African Commisi:fil~'b oiHuman OO~JPeoplt~'
I z
"i .:. -:;. \_ t-..
Rigbtsr,,
31 Bijilo Annex L ~
out,'Rombo,Nor:th"'Dislrict-'.51
- ...,,,....,
,.........
-:-,_-<.
• t Coast\Region"GaQ1b1a •
Phone: (220) 230 43 . ,FaX)if.i~Pt.14~5' ~21
Emai I: au-batfitit@afriea::union.org
https:/achpr.au,int/0 0 11:11
~
ACHPR
,,
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
and effective but were not exhaµsted by thl Complainants.
49. The Respondent State further submits that tre Communication is not compatible with
'
Articles 56(2), (5) and (6) of the Charter. Wi;th regard to Article 56(2), the Respondent
I
State submits that compatibility with the Ch;arter or the Constitutive Act of the African
Union entails that any Communication filed in such a matter should prove a prima
facie case of violatio'n of a specified Article, failing to do so would entail that there can
be no communication before the African clmmissiol),;I;~~i~:c'a:s~, the Complainants
were prosecuted for violating the Anti-Ter}orism.,lai of the ~~~i6n under a free and
• "< '',
I
fair court of law and were found guilty of t~e,,s~tf~D~e. Th~;~rim~.ffi~,ry7:'\N:ere co11yicted
;.:·~ltt\?'.{/:,;·,;,; f~>~
·<,t· :.~,.<,,,,,:.·:. • <·.>;··~":~'
for has nothing to do with the freedom ~f~¢~pressi0ij~~ opirtiq~,i:ather ifis·a"result of
i
"
·-.._
I
1
terrorism charges.
,,;;: .P<~~.J:,,,,_
,:
I
1:_
:iv.
·<~·~;
50. The Respondent State also suq!111ts:-Jltat the''.:~9h1!11unication dqes not satisfy the
"
"<_:'•· ':, '- :
\,~:;;tt:~>,
requirement of Article 56;(7) of the 4\{rican Ch~h~r. In this regard, both the
•I•
.._'
; •,.
~}•:/'.;,
~... ~,._
/!;,.
complainants', Mr. Eskinder,J\J\~ga Fenta,.µnq~r commu¾'.c~B'on no. 1116/2012 and the
_.,-' ' ,'. \-,,(/Y'.~.
/.;,};:J~
..
,>'; -~·, .
Second Complainqn{:i\1,~- R~~yotfAieiu "\1J~~t: ..,,,~b~unication no.1124/ 2012
I '
,
• .,,_.,,; ":<,
.:~.:</:' .:~;~>~
·-~~:!·:,·_y;/
represented by, Media Legal Defens~}"~,av~ bro-qght the case to the United Nations
and Cultural (o~ianization
(UNESCO). As a result the
Educational, sb~ntific
.. ·'
.
,,,,
'1
,
'
UNESCO has be~ll.' p.ealing with th1, case pf the two complainants for the past two
-:_. .· ' ,_ ~~-
t'
:
year~, ~ence, this is)1,cle9-r violatiol)!iof Article 56(7) of the African Charter.
\::-; :~i.:'.">•~-.-::-.
"· . . ' -;. :'· .... --
..,_..,/:/
51. The 1.\~sp,on.cj~nt State tuttI-t~t~µ:bfmts that the first Complainant was charged with
• 't\. ·~~~~;i;-~}~??r:,;·-..,.
•
,., ··"" ·-·'··"
crimes ,,~qnunitt~sJ..i:n,~iolation of domestic laws after a thorough investigation of his
I
".{ ·: !,
r~,·'t-:·/
'·<.;;:;,:::/:•t;r~; . ~"'.?:f>
participat{onJiri terrorlsf;activities and backed by evidence. That his trial took place in
'. .. ~
!: .'/ .
:
public and"};t.~ was given the opportunity to defend himself and represented by a
lawyer. Due ~;r:g¢ess was followed through~ut the process of the trial. The Respondent
{;).,-
I
State also submits that the second Compl~inant was charged with crimes under the
I
Ethiopian Criminal Code and Anti-Terrori~m Proclamation. Her trial was also held in
public with due respect and observance i of the FDRE Constj~i:,y:fml~ . ,qt\al
human rights treaties and relevant provisjons of the Criminaj~1oce~de.'
\
1
was also represented by a legal counsel of ier choice.
i
!
I
lOIPagc
,',il
•
~
li
MJ$• l' "'1
',I;''
.· ~ }
~ ~ Ii
.•
1}
.
I>}
The African Commis ,on on l'IJ:J~~tPe~_pl'e •
~R,g, ts
31 Bijilo Annex Layo~efrstrict,
West Cbast=Reg,oh Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
'¾.<,,,.:_.;v.~
..
."':CHP~.
'
f
f
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
•
Human Rights our
I
.
. Co'.lective Responsibility
52. The Respondent State also avers that freed~:nn of expression 1s guaranteed under the
I
FDRE Constitution and the Government ~trongly believes that the media plays a
'
significant role in furthering democratic: culture in the society and promoting
development activities. However, those w~o abuse it for the purpose of advancing
instability and tenorism in the country cannot be serving the noble cause of
journalism. The Respondent State avers th!at the Government has a duty to ensure
I
,,,::·,•····
national security and public safety and nobbdy is abo/yf~tfi~·tf~~h,,
I
,r!"t?{
"\'f:!f; I':,
53. Regarding the second Complainant's allegation t!(arj~~,f,,right teJealth was violated
I
'\,,;J':l•;.
Ai/..
due to the inadequate medical treatment sh~:!~cE:!jved '•0.iftJ11:g;Jh'.tftir;i.~c,1.~s~ratiQn, the
,+/ >'i :)?'•~•::(::.:·,~
~,~<Y>/1:;t;. ,
~'-'¼~;···=t~7~t?:1.'. ::Flfi::;~?
~espo~dent ~ta~e sub.mit~ that the rig~~l:f~~~~thl{~~.:?fe oft~~iij~~~dame~ta'~ human
rights m Eth10pia wluch 1s protectec;\;tunderart1cle 89,,of the FDR!~'~PJ)Stltution. The
allegation that second complainen'.til'~r!ght ~o ,~;a)th
unfounded. The Ethiopian .:~t~deral
~~s been viollt!~ is untrue and
;~ii~~;1~dministt~ti~n health facility gives every
prisoner medical care free::ist?' a.tge. Fuitffe~~~2fe, any·~;9i~al care that1s beyond the
"".'·
·i,:'.t
~{\'.;;.~;J~i:\,.
,.i(ff"
r, ·,
/;/
capacity of the me4:i9Atc~re ci:f:Itfl~i,;~rison mea.~~al fa~ility will be addressed by the
.; , •
•" ,~,
"'tr;;J~lr*,t·
•iJ
-
1
country s best ~edical care facili~ieS:~er:'.~~, Artisr 11(4) 0~ the ~irective n_o._ 138/.99.
As a result, Ms.•. Reyote 1s was first ad1'i!,~·m:§?- to the Kahty pnsons adm1rustrat10n
; "
\
\~lx.•i~"'."'f
medical care faci,lity 1,.However, sine~· herd~~~ required a specialized medical care she
·•. ·,
;.
I
.
was;:;:r:~/erred to Tikl!r fi.~?esa Spec!ajized :Hospital, which hosts the Medical Faculty
l
.
of t~lI(~?g~~''<b-baba tiih~~}sity;;:_:t&>~et furt!~1er treatment. This fact could be verified
from J~,,~~~i6f!~1t~e<Jical r~c·o~·ds. 2
54. The Respbvhts';;;t~:~~;{;,_. that the facts I aised in the Communication do not show
prima facie v:t9lations of the provisions of the Charter. Thus they are not compatible
with Article \~6:3(2), and do not fall withih the rationae materiae ju1-isqi~ .. e
;:\:'
I
,..""..~o ~~1'AR1.q,'°~0
Commission.••,.
-~t$-O"':}~c.---~--.
~~
J'
0
~
I
o n
~ ~
~:;;~,.
•''!/
~._.
II'~
,..,,,
0
Cf>
-.. :..
AU•V~
~
K,.
2 With respect to protection to the health of prisoners, as per the tjmted Nations General Assemo
;~0J~tiqn nqf,_'37)i/'
the principles of Medical ethics relevant to the role of health personµel, particularly physicians, in the•P.r0t~5tj~'n.Rb1'izr4,s6't~
'
• t any torture an d oth er crueI, inhumane ov d egra d.mg treatment or purus
• hm'"""
.,,,r.. Fi=TSc. a'k'-d
an d d e tamees
agams
ent'.'!:i~
an
employed by the Ethiopian Prison Administration.
I
I
··I·
lllPagc
Afri~nf,i;\
Union\;'"JY,
I
C')
f! :;
The African Commission on Human.and Peoples'
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
,,::
,("'~)ACHPR
€ {'.
"<,',((1
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
•
,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
.
55. The Respondent State further argues that it has ratified many international human
i
rights instruments including the African Charter and has undertaken its obligations
to promote and protect human rights. It ha~ actively and regularly engaged with the
Commission and submitted its periodic reJorts under Article 62. All the above are a
clear manifestation of the country's commiJment to both the regional mechanism and
the protection of h~~an rights in general iJ the country.
56. For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent !state req~~~ts the :¢o~ission to dismiss
the Communication.
. ,-
/ \ •'\,
The African Commission's Analysis on Admissibilt1:Y;t i:·.,. ·- <,
'<;;!('.:',;i'{ti{,<'i, \,,
·, :·-
>:~
>-" /,-,- •
,;<~-~ \{,,
.
ff.. \.
" ' ·_ i "''{\'\"'
57. Article 56 of the African Charter sets out se'V{en requirements that a Communication
1
,,· /)
' :G,;fY:.:;:::; . ,
. t'1'./
•\~- ', ,.:·.
brought under Article 55 of the.1Jfit~~'~h~rt;ii'~!~t~~tisfy in order to be Admissible
for consideration by the (,ommissi~iif;,:rhose ;~'4!~:t;~ments apply cumulatively. 3
:.•;;'};.
''<, ··: f''·"·
•·\i~;; ·.~:~~hi¾ . .. t-
Failure to satisfy any on~<or:·#).g1·e of th9s,~1;f~q1tirement'~jJBciers the Communication
inadmissible, unles~Jlj~,:~om'.Jf](tagt-p;ov~de\:sufftcieRtjustifications as to why any
of the requirem~J(~ ~o~ld ~ot be ~~~i:):• .
•-,~:t: ~> ~
,{;f
58. The Complainc@ts submit that all the"r~qH,irements under Article 56 have been
\~~... ~\
t.
\·-, li-7
complied with. 1:,1'.iehRespondent Stat~ ho;o/ever argues that the Communication does
':t:i:i]>.
I
i,:-
not:'.·m_eet the requi:f~m~nts stipulat~d unciler Article 56 of the African Charter. In
·._ : ".,,, ::::?>,..
..,1r
I
partiq.ila:i;/th~ Respondert~t$t~tij\Isubmits trat the Communication does not comply
·;,
' . . :r".':.
•
•• ,,_._._.,,."·"
:
•
with Artjcles '56.~'(2), (5) and (7); namely, that it is not compatible with the African
\\
·:<./< <. , _; :} ::·:~-·.-· ; ·.·;,:,
:
''<
1 e Act of the African Union; that local remedies have not been
Charter oi'.the Constifutii
/~;y·
;I_,,:./
I
exhausted a:nµ that th~- Complainants' case was being adjudicated before the United
• .
I
Nations, Ed~c:ational, Scientific and Cultur~l Organisation (UNESCO).
'
I
59. The Responde~t State did not raise objectiqns with regards to the other requirements
I
•
under Article 56, apart from raising a Jenera! objection at t h ~ ~ - of its
.
.
.
.
0
. , ~ e,~<c.iAR14,-
,
I
I
'
,_
3Rule 106, Rules of Procedure of the Commission, 2010; Communication 304/05 - FIDI-1
para 38.
Communication 275/2003 -Article 19 v. Eritrea (2007) ACHPR.
4
12 I P n g e
.,,~_,,.,
Afriqan(,"%;;~
Urnon~~
I
1
ii§'
'°~o
..,--•.
8
cJ>
~/
~•
I
,gi
~ :I:
~•
, ]hers v Senegal (2006) ½.'_€HP ,
gt·'
. \ cc.,.... '?,,~.. ~U-Ul"
c:::,
0
••
14~
._
~
15',-:
~"'"'
•"" 9;,,Q
< OJv 4'""RIC,._,~
0
(:,.'J~-''
The African Commissio ~~4mct'1 i!~Ee pies'
--s:;~,,.-,,Rights
31 BiJ"ilo Annex La 111 out, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au,inUO {J. a
.·--·- .\ ACH PR
p.CHP#l
}$,
;;;l African Commission on
o
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
the Commission is satisfied that the Complainants have fulfilled the requirements
I
under Articles 56(1), (3), (4) and (6). In this regard, the Commission will proceed to
analyse the arguments of both parties with ]!egards to the requirements under Articles
56(2), (5) and (7) of the African Charter.
60. Article 56(2) provides that "Communications .. received by the African Commission shall be
considered if they: are compatible with the Chdrter of the Organisation of African Unity or
I
.
.
·t·. -~~;-.,'
·. ',
with the present Charter. II In proving that tre abo~~ ~.equire~~~~ has been met, the
Complainants submit that the Commission has ip::H~::P{eviom\qecisions stated that
I
~: ,.. ,,.,
.'
the condition of compatibility requires thatJ~~,0~ommutjiq~ti9ri}hoqlc.i "l>e brpught
against a State Party to the African Char,tePb~-:~g~~~me ~ho is co~p~te~t-to do so;
.~,(\t.'.~
/{•,·,f~~{t:~~
''
V
>.
'
the Communication should be brougpfln 'r~§;W~~t of 1t9lations thafoccurred after the
,/'·/·
State's ratification of the CharJ~I
"1
•<']:j~(;{)\i\,
.. ~{?
'z,' ·,. ·:✓ .,
r whicH:l_g~·g~"'n before sucJr :-·ratification and
, •
:>)~,
I
'f~~}~.'.~_->;,, •
continued thereafter; and t9,,e Commt:iij!~~~ion mu'~~:i~l~ege prima fade violations of
.<'<~\},
'"<:;::~::t-':·:"...
~-\;\_· )·'.·;..
,c.J•
rights protected by the J\'fii~a;~ Charter.}Plii:~~;~cited Kevjfy:'Mwanga Gunme et al v.
·.
~, <:>.,., ; <<!\:::;.;;,·
,,,\:-~t;:fr/;:;-,.>.
5
Cameroon in sur,:-ort;of:t~eir ai.I~~~eitt. :
.t~·r/'
:r;\Ij,>':•' ·'>'
61. The Complain~nfs further" argue ·tlj:~ti:,"al~ thre~J;ifequirements are met. First, the
Complainants a}~ Ethiopian national~t;l11i;>;.,personally suffered violations of their
\: •f \
'1
'\~:::1:;\:f'
•
rights as protecf~_d. under the Afr~~an @1,\arter. They have authorised their legal
',
,•",
I
repres.entatives to file :a, complaint/with the Commission on their behalf. Second,
Ethid'~iki:ta,tit!ed the ·2:hait~:i;/9nJSJ~ne 1998 and the violation of the Complainants'
\'.·r. "•-.L<:).1~~~::'i'.~/."_ •'~
• -- •~'<~"" ,
I
•
rights o~gan wl,,'~nJ:11:fY were prosecuted for terrorism in the second half of 2011. The
\\\.
.,,::1~j;,-". <t;.;_'.:.tt}i::f::r,,.~;fi
I
alleged vi?l~pi6ns contjp,ue up to the time ,of filing this Communication. Mr Nega is
'••;>[:
, ,,,,
I
still in pris'ol} whilst Ms Alemu was une~pectedly released in July 2015. The said
violation of ti~~omplainants' rights occutred within Ethiopian territory. Third, the
~~~
I
Complainanti' ~ubmit that the following ri~hts of the Complainants protected by the
Charter have been violated: Right to Freeddm of Expression ( A r t i ~ ' ! a Fair
,
. 'cf,~'- ~~ Rt , ,?t,q,-
Trial (Article 7) and Right to health (Article 16).
~
~
/.
I
~
o
I
~·
(.)
•
{")
fl 9.
~
AU-IJA
o'&
tt>i, --✓
. <~
s ACHPR, Comm. No. 266/03 (2009),para.71
····I·
13JPagc
'7. ~
I
<5' 0
/
,,.
(;)Cf-
~':,
,<j;:RICl\\1'11::- Q
~..__<v"'
ifrnw~~ eoples'
The African Commissi~n'•~::if
•~
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 tm
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
62. The Commission observes that the requi~·ements of Article 56(2) have been well
.
'
articulated in its decision in Kevin Mwanga Gunme et al v. Cameroon6 as cited by
the Complainants. Based on this decision ~nd the submissions of the Complainants,
the Commission notes that the p11esent Combunication is brought against the Federal
Party to the African Charter by the
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), aI State
,
•
I
'
.
Complainants who are nationals of Ethiopia; the Communication before the
Commission is brought in respect of allegbd violati9,eftJ{~mtt?tc;urred in 2011, after
.
I
d:i't
''\,:1/\
Ethiopia had ratified the African Charter; and th~{Cqtnp1unica\~~,n alleges prima facie
violations of rights protected by the Africaj ~p,~rte,r. ;~;tirere,1)Kf@21J}[l.issi<?H finds
~- :·.-:" ·' L·'. ·.,. ~· .:·•\.
"'<.:}~;~;::,.(
··"•1 ":<t~~:~~··::,,:.~>.. ,:·:~F:~.rf,..
that the Complainants have satisfied Ar!_iclf56 (2)'qgtt1e Chat*~!\
,. :, .... ' ·_;t-~,?:-.
'--t~/4(~1->-.
,' ,
,,":.
63. Regarding Article 56(5), a Compla~;9ant s~~'.~1:~ ex¥:9st local
~-,;'t ·:<
.r,:;,}~
:-
··-,.,<,/·
""\." _,,'\
ref~ ies unless it is
obvious that the procedure is,,1Ji~~~l,y prolo;;'ge,4~; ,Therefore th,~ ·or~us is on the
·-::.;;::'-';:>,.
I
',.
>.
Complainants herein to pr9¥ide suffic'i~~t;,reason(sftp,~upport their allegation that
_. ·:,::-\,:_.
-
···{T}/\,;
·--_ ... \._
they have complied witlvH!u:@i:1.i,d tequir,e,fr1~p.\;-,
'• .
>,__
·-<.}tt~~r~.
,,,,/)·!' l "'.t~;_;;\/i11>,,
·:> /
64. The Complainants s:uJ>ll}i\ thafi~~£~:ce:Jft-vell-Ejstabli$~:~g2principle that the provisions of
/ .,.- • •
• - ·<·\ ,,
''4.:~Jt>;,_~
•1
•·,\~·JbfJ/
Article 56(5) shquld be interpreted<<[:!»,the light .¢F[the] duty to protect human and
peoples' rights;~~ stipulated in the 2i{f;j;,i:;:;sand that for domestic remedies to be
·~:
-:\
'\ii-T/f
exhausted, they hay~ to be "available, eff~efive and sufficient." 8 That the Commission
,,
·~, ,.,
~;:· •...
-------,~-------
• •
I
• :s
6 ACHPR, ~o~~~.~d)2gp/03 (2009):;ara'.7f,;:I:.':>··: :_,'/
:
.
.
..
7 Commumcation.~~os.,tS,M~i:§t 61/91 & 96793,&,98/93 & 164/97 ;& 196/97 & 210/98, Malawi African Assoczation, Amnesty
International, Ms Sarr Diop;)111Y!,~01'f,,interafricaine des droits de ['Homme and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayants-Droit,
Association maurita~ie1Jne des droits,d?l;'J:iQmme v. Mauritania, par. 85. The
communication cond~n:te,d:~if~gati6ris.[tli;~Jit~ government, after it took power in a coup d'etat in 1984, was
marginalising Black M~iiritanian ethni~fgroups. The Commission ~ddressecl the requirement that local remedies
must be exhausted and }ield that the requirement should not be applied literally as it is sometimes "neither practicable nor
desirable" for the complaµiants or the victims to pursue such internal channels of remedy in every case of a violation of
human rights.
\;;,_ <~
I
8 Communication no. 284/0'J;}?,imbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights
Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe, par. 101
- 102. The communication\:oncerned the implementation of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
(AIPPA). The Commission, in paragraph 101 outlined tl1e respective burdens on the ::laimant arid respondent in showing
'exhaustion of local remedies': 'If a Complainant wishes to argue :that a particular remedy does not have to be exhausted
because it is unavailable, ineffective or insufficient, the procedure ~s as follows: the Complainant states thaUhe remedy did
not have to be exhausted because it is
I
ol'l HlJ.M4N
ineffective (or unavailable or insufficient) - this does not yet have to be proven; the Respondent:S(<!,t'e$,Os'tEili'e'O',q;'1fa.o
show that the remedy is available, effective and sufficient; and if ~e Respondent State is ab1 {~~1tab~•this~ «"~
7
then the Complainant must either demonstrate that he or she did exhaust the remedy, or tht"'@cou~d noJ:~a:~. ~'\
~
been effective in the specific case, even if it mav be effective in general.'; Communicati01i: o~250 1(02, If.fesb"'etfz~ZeO?,e/d a'f?
J
,
\\..
\f,1/,~o~
w ci
71
Mussie Ephrem v. Eritrea, par. 36 - 37. The communication
concerned
the alleged illegal
~ 8 Ii.
"'""''
·
arrest of 11 former Eritrean government officials in Asmara, Eritr+ on 18 and 19 Septemb~r. ·~,Ql~i v~latis>.Qf~f
f
4'
I
l"'
14 Jp a g ~A;J;nt:f'k'•.i
U · -."Y,11
rnon ""iJI
-•
••• •••••• •• • · • • • • •• ••
• •• ••••• • ••••• ••••••••••• : ·
I
J;
J
The African Comm is J•~t~lil~~~~~f!:;i~e,~
31 Bijilo Annex L~!,'.1-k_~ro~o.J~P_~~lct,
West Coa-st;gegieri"Garnbia
(220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 llll
Phone:
AC PR
:11;,~~-".P._~.\
,~
"t "s,crrxtr.t.
'I African Commission on
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
e
has held that, if domestic remedies do not meet the aforementioned criteria, a victim
,
I
I
does not have to exhaust them before briJ1ging a complaint. The Commission has
further held that a remedy can only be considered effective "if it offers a prospect of
success." 9
65. The Complainants submit that in August ?012, the First Complainant, appealed the
first instance judgment by the Federal High Court (Lideta Criminal Bench) delivered
,
-- . . .
against him on 13 July 2012. On 2 May 2013, the Federal Sup·;eme Court upheld the
.
I
:
"
•.
jud~e~t in first inst~nce. ~~e-reafter, the jirst Comp!~~~~nt de5t~ed not to req~est a
hearmg m the Cassat10n D1v1s10n of the FetlE;fcll::§:µ rem~ Gq:y,r,t.Jis he.·J•V:~~. co~-ymced
.;'!'.:>tf?:;:;; ,.
'·<: ·::: ~--, -,-:, .• ''.:'>':/'
that it would not constitute an effectiV,'
me· is1e '£ his criminal conviction. The
<l,
. •
\t//i~:\
-,,,'..:~\}~~
deadline for filing an application for,~·hea 111gyyxpir~1a,):m 31 Julf?013 ..
, ... :.
. "•j~:,rl-·,::-: ,. .
./i~~/
-. _
•
•
66. The Complainants argued that tJ;ie.f~r~.t C9mplijj~~?t was justifie.¢:'in his conviction
that the cassation procedur~>had mirli~~~ior no··ift, .~ct of success, given that the
t,-.:1
,i,,
''.'><'-"
,"',
Cassation Division of th~,Ji~li~r,~l Supre;rnf~~:m:t is nof1~fija:~~al appeal instance and
•~;,
'<,(,~:;.•~
':,./'
I
.)>/
•~.•:~J:i:,
can only reconsider,,.~::[~.-~~isiori"1f;;the,re ha~ bJEiri::a,\~'Ju:fidamental error of law". The
_A;()/~,;,,,._..__,, __ ,,.1-;),::.. ,
f
• \. •. :,,;
,:
·.?o_...
Complainant~ stj;~init that a heariri.g~~tthe Cassat~on Division of the Federal Supreme
{-?
·~ ·.~'',>\;'. \;-,. '
..,
Court would inp,~ed have been a mere fo,ima\ity with no actual prospect for relief for
<r;;'\\
(',
\ . r . ,,
the First Cornpl~in~rt since the huqian :d~hts violations contended for by the First
\}ii'.f;}:,;,
\'.f
r
Co~:p!ainant do n~~L°~S~.:me withir~/[fthe narrow scope of review afforded by the
Cas~i~f.r\p.ro<:edure:•c, ,:;;i{;t,iz:[:~E:Itt::.;l')/
<1,
,
:. ,
I
, ··:.,.
.
67. The Cot11plaihant~·.:c1Js.o submit that, und¢r Article 80(3) (a) of the Constitution of
'1\ •' '/. ',,<{/\ ~ :\•~.x
:
Ethiopia, t.h~;Federal SU:preme Court has th:e power of Cassation review over any and
~
:·
~ ~
every final :~<;>urt deci~ion containing a fundamental error of law. This is further
,,
.._
I
,··t
I
specified in -~tticle 10 of Proclamation :No. 25/1996, which states that such a
fundamental e~ror of law is the sole ground for approving a Cassation review. Thus,
I
.
.
. .
:
I
.
o"4 l"tUI\IIAN 4No
..ftoY-_ c.~~:AR1.qy- '°~
Entrean law and the Af~1can Char_ter. The Co~m1ss10~ refers to lnter-Amen~an Cour~;1"fum~1gh~ case B. ~ .
.
on the burden of proof m exhausting domestic remedies: 'The Court also opmed thatf1J5ere a.;i;pa~,~~non- e-~ ustion
of local remedies because of the unavailability of due process in the State, the burden/~fJproof wil.(<\tj} \ ~
1
shift to "the State claiming non-exhaustion and it has an obligation to prove that do~ ~ic rebedies,ereni.ain to !!e =;
exhausted and that they are effective."; Communication 147/95, 149/96 Sir Dawda K • llba J~ara v,;,..TheJ@ambitf?p[i." 31
9 Communication 147/95, 149/96- Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambfa, para. 31 & 32
, ~j(_ '%.r~ ~ /<r.,c-,Q c,,
i '
15 I p
·,,,,,•• "
I
age
African li¢i\
Union'\J'i#
• •
•
•
'
,
1
\
, S i n . , - .~'v
;jl
.
C • . .-•1,1,·RH_,..,,,. -~
I '
Th e African
omr;msS),On on um~r;i~
eop es
~ E ' E 1 ~ / Rights
31 BiJ'ilo Annext-ay0ut-.~Korri60 North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.inUO O a
/ . ~,
. AC HPR .
(
JI, African Commission on
•.
•
Human and Peoples' Rights
<.
Human R;ghts ou,
Collective Responsibility
I
for a case to be deemed suit~ble for cassatipn review, it must concern not merely an
'
error in law, but a fundamental one, w~ich is a narrowly constructed concept
II
',
interpreted to refer to situations. worthy of judicial review and in need of legal
interpretation.
68. The Complainants submit that in brief, it is taken to refer to situations which involve
the application of incorrect laws, issues related with the jurisdiction of the courts and
j
issues rela~ed to legal interpretation as seJ out in th,e):Z~~~:i~tnant' s Expert Report
provided.
•
r:-:
,
,·., .:
" ',
,
i
l
69. The Complainants also submit that, due o _the. narrow,Jht~pp:i,:~tj:ition.,given_,to the
-1 ~: ',, '.' , , \ ',
'" , .·<
,, "· '·<,,"
~- ·:· ) "
scope of the fundamental error of law tes.t, truy vetr,_ fe~ cas'es -are accepted as having
a fundamental error of law by the (;qssatib;n.':l)ivisiori_.of the Federal Supreme Court.
/:~<·
: "..,.' • :. •
<:'
•
In support of this submission, tq~Z:~pfilplai~ant$ :relied on the Complission' s decision
-~<.0/;}~:;.~.,
~
in Interights, Asadho et ~,Jtre O Dis:
.::::< ;,:,
•,.,, .tj '?!:,-,
I
. :_Republi~~x Democratique du Congo,10
',J~ ,<·•: ~ . . ):'.-.
''·<;:'.·;'.f,~i~'.+.,
>
where the Commission,Jftfd'.,that a cass·£troh-review<~'ditfnot constitute an effective
•
>
--
-,~
/.-~{.>/ : ~~r~t~~f~t:~~,
<~:f\~1~~]/;,\
\ ./
remedy because it coul1-re.vi~_w only~1!!:,,r,1spect for flit{:f:BJ,~:Pf procedure and not the substance
'.
••
,:,:tf/',[J'.•
, •• h•,
\,;;_:.~~.:ri'
of the claim. Con_sequently,· [iin appealJ~s£assationJ,,)iYas not capable of curing the alleged
.
.
"
!~<?:~i\
violations.
, ,., ,,,,s1, .. , ...•
>
,
.
>
"
~,\~~{f.:i J:,Y
70. The Complainan~~ ,further submit t\,at tl,}f~primary basis of the First Complainant's
app~.al to the Fede'ral!Supreme Cour{tvas tlie insufficiency of the evidence brought by
\
"'.''-''-
, ',
,.-- ;;,
">
";./
I
the 1lthi~,pia:n goverrun~'.nt.§i~1g-: ~hillenging the factual events w_hich the Ethiopian
!;:
~
, :..J
-~, :<: ~:.....
, L, :; ,;, '
goverriinenf'~ll~g~~Lqualified as "terrorism". That the main thrust of his appeal was
'v}::\
,,(,}-·" ·<·:t~'.~.':~--~,.::'.it·.~• t:'-
•
3
based on\!!)~;fact tha:t:Jl1Ji''government conyicted him without proving his guilt. As
.
-,, ',
,~
;
. _,
/,
such, the c8t~ of the Fi;st Complainant's challenge to his conviction was factual and
\f:\
,~
theref01:e woultj:,~hevitably fall outside the j~risdiction of the Cassation Division of the
:
Federal Supreme Court.
I
,
'rlulJIAIIIANop
~1'ARIAT
~O
°Communications nos. 274/03 and 282/03, Interights, Asadho et:Maitre 0 Disu v.1:l,fp#JJ4~e Dem~ratiq'e , u
1
Congo,The communication concerned alleged human rights abuse~ of individuals, bot~fnilit~µd~iviliap, wt.,9
accused of involvement in the assassination of the President of the Democratic RepubJ\g:of Cpng~O~l.Tnet ~
Commission again reaffirmed its findings in the Sir Dawda K. Jaw/ll'a conununicatio4~n ext1aus'~l<2~,.df
)
~
remedies and discussed what constitutes an effective remedy, find~ng that a court tha\ tnly:,reviewe<bp>Jbced1ge
rather than substance could not provide an effective remedy and trlerefore if that option;w.fs~;~ht ufed it di~pbt;-z'
!
~-':1/s.s1~~\l>"' ,f<,,§"
mean that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.
§
161 Page
!
The African Commisii&'fi'I'~~
d Peoples'
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr,au.inUO O a
·-~--
i,.CHPJi
.i. ,;,,------
•
':-
<
1>
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
~
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
71. The Complainants submit that in accordanfe with the Commission's case law, there
I
was therefore no requirement for the First Cpmplainant to seize the Cassation Division
I
of the Federal Supreme Court in order to ipeet the Commission's admissibility
1
• reje
I d 1es.
"
•
• ofd omestic
reqmrements
on exh ausbon
72. In addition, the Complainants submit that a cassation review could never be
I
considered an effective remedy as practice has shown that it is impossible for him to
receive a fair trial in E;hiopia. In this contkxt, .the Firs;t1~3i¥{~lainant referred to the
<1r::~t
I
ii;(;)\
history of persecution he has suffered in EthiopiafllS}w:ell as the!Hnumerous fair trial
,
I
.,,.
'«~~::;-:·<-\:.
j~-~t
violations he suffered in the proceedings that l~d tP his Ctilrre~t;q.eJentjol}.
1
•. ~,
''\~,t/tt
,~,,£,. • ~."¥•~•"'~
h¼N~-'~~:_}, , ; / ,
,
'~i,'t,,~J\~~-'~/
73. The Complainants further submit that_.,th~'-C~rrurj.i$sJon h~{(:11eld pre~dbUsly in a
•
•
•
•
~".
'-h
~✓-··,.
'
h.
Communication filed against EthiopJffhaF~k::~xcep\9-h to the Jiz~;tfiq9p1estic remedies
•
' ' ",~ 'y'<}~~' ~...~
/f}f,
-.i
/
\;. :)'.:~}!'
[applies] where the domes.tic situatigtt;;~tt~e S~ate·dqif}r:ot afford due pi,o'cess of law for the
\<t-?~H2t:
~<-}{ . •':~··:
1
protection of the right or rights,.phat have llZltge,dly been''v(CJ19:ted"11 .
,F\ ;
:,:" •• , .. ,,,;
•,'
~
'
1
74. The Complainants argu~;:t~~_k}Jf:i~ Co~it~(~i,:;l,,,as well'as:va~ious other international
;~ •
'~?:'.iii:~~~}J, .
,_f{)•;••
;1~~:~-.~
: ,. •
human rights bodies hav~_ statedJllfl,,t;)fne e~hai:i$J!b}1J,Vle serves the purpose of giving
I
. _.,,. --· ••
~,:":~
.. \ ( ;
'<,;;~:;;:r;f.Jf
;_;<(}'.i'f?..
the Respondent_ $fate the op'portuni't½:\tQ become -~Yvare of the human rights violation
'ii''.\\tff" ,
and remedy it.+:
'·<~,:·· ,·"
--------"-'-'---------'-
~
... \..,
./,]'/
I
'
I
/_.¢;/
•
11 ACHPR, Hare'i~~OiitGabre-Selas~i~ ~_IH~_Qi\(q:rfb~half of former Dergue officials) v. Ethiopia, Comm. No301/05
(2011), par. 111. t"ff26~1n~:~ation concerried.£::group of officials from Ethiopia's former Dergue regime
who had been det~gied and)fl~~gE!~ collectively for human rights f;lbuses that occurred during the regime. The
Commission endorsed the linifcff)::ase;law that found that domestic remedies have to be available, effective and
sufficient to be effecti~e rerftJdies. 'th~'.C6ititiiission also stated that for there to be an exception to the rule on the exhaustion
of domestic remediesShit{must be a tjt,¢~~h of a right enshrined tj1 the Charter. In Haregewoin
Gabre-Selassie the Comrfyfsion explicitly referred to the right to a fair trial enshrined under Article 7 of the
Charter and held that if a;t,,tate did not afford due process of law for the protection of the right then there would be an
exception to the exhaustion}:E!qµirement
!
12 ACHPR, Darfur Relief a:ri~,'oocumentation Centre v. Sudan, Comm. No. 310/05 (2009), par. 71.
The communication conced'i.ed Sudanese men who had been unlawfully detained in military prison and the Sudanese
government's renegation on its agreement to compensate them. The Court stated: 'The Commission has stated that the
justification for this requirement is that a government should be aw~re of a human rights violation in order to have a chance
to remedy such violation, thus protecting its reputation which may be tarnished by being called to plead its case before an
international body. This requirement also precludes the African Cbmmission from becoming a tribunal of first instance, a
function which it cannot fulfil practically _or le~ally.'; ACHPR, A9nesty International v. Suda~eo!WU~~~L90 (1999),
par. 32. The communications alleged that the government was ref ponsible for human right§"&dl~\l11i1~RW~I~ ~extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests and detentions since July 1989, the arrest, detention <;l~}for&f:t~sitf'~ oup
members since June 1990 and the suppression of Sudanese Christi~ns. The Commission r~{@'ted that one_pf the rea~ for
the exhaustion requirement is to ensure that the government is aware of a human rights vi~1~tion or~~]lm~}thJ c'J1 ce
I
\ ~<:! 2 ·{ ~-:,~
~ Gi
to remedy it.
,.....
t::' ~
£
17 I P a g e
~""'""
Afri<;anij)0
Union • •
:
I
The African Corn 'jssigrt~n Human'and it'eo~lfl '
d,
°J'-r,_'-.....~ '°Jc::, ~igfi s
31 Bijilo Anne~af6ut...~o/Pb,i;i,efo..-.;rtQ:0Jji'r!ct,
(W@st cb'asfRegloh 6ambia
Phone: (220) 230 attfrr'ax:C"(gi_g.);$(1 05 04
Email: au:1.rarmii@arrica-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 <~ a
I
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibiiity
,
this interest was fully protected when the First
1
I
Complainant pursued the single substantive appeal available against his criminal
conviction, namely an appeal to the Federallsupreme Court. This appeal was rejected.
Moreover, the First Complainant's trial ahd ·criminal appeal received widespread
attention from the media, non-governmentll organisations, international institutions,
and other governments.13 As such, there is no realistic possibility that the Ethiopian
government was unaware of the situation or did not J1a;~ th~,6p.portunity to remedy
the situation.
76. The Commission notes that the procedure, f9;.,~JSJ;:t~usting lq.c~ljtidicial.i.-_emeqies in
i.f~:?:tt1~,t~~:,;:,:'.\?;:--
·, =,
• :.
' .,
,,
,-
~
• , . /
this case is as follows: the Federal HighJ2;qtirt, tn'.~Di{tte Fedef~L,?upreiii.e·G6urt and
/(;;::~'-·;>~~~\~
''\\\;;
•.
·\,,
then the Cassation Division of the J:~deral\SµRreme }~,6urt. The''1~l$pondent State in
/.'i,:
'.
""~.~
0
•
;•
/
f~il~Bt~ exhaust loca:l judicial remedies
this case contends that the First 901J}pJ~inart
•
✓~'.f)?
'\i)\t::i '.
I
I
;;,,,,i'7'T;'.'c
which were available and effective be~~i1se the latt€tflias on his own volition, failed to
'~<~r<\·-->.
.,\l~(\}J";\. ,. t/
• ,-:,-,/~\
present an appeal to theJZas§~Wm Divis,i91~/g'.(:fl1e Federaf;p'upreme Court.
>•,
I
•
✓~
•>>
0
77. The Commission q.l.~,~~·j,}9ltes ili~ttn.e>First Cdi,n~~~:i}p~~t is not contesting that an
,,:"'~//
""•::.;·:_,,_
\_~ . .-.· '.,:,
·,~:·,
',;7
opportunity
to ap'peal
to the Cassatip'i\,
Pivision
◊h:he Federal Supreme Court is not
•
i ·~.
': /
•• '
-~
available but ratl\er, that it is not an eff~,Gfi;Ve recourse because it is only a formality
v./;\.
•
i\
"',,·t·:,,"
•
with no prosped,'~f::puccess due to tl;le lirpi'ted nature of its jurisdiction and therefore
!!::ii
:~/1,"j'..'.:):
I
decid~d not to prot~~d-with the hea:tfng of the Appeal filed at the Cassation Division
·=>ir~:r:__::. ?!'1\'.1~-·
\ ., >~ >--.
,,,J<·.'.tt
:
of the1F,~9-eral.?upreme· Cciµ'.ft:9g{9:May 20!3.
78. The C~~ssi?n /u.rther reiterates that a rrmedy is effective if it offers prospects of
;,
l\
,
:.
~
~•,;,
'
< -~.
J:'..)
success ai1;d(that is, th~_;,appropriate relief. that is capable of adequately and timely
redressing\:Re specific violation suffered. H9wever, the effectiveness of a remedy does
•
I
not depend ··.011· the certainty or guara+tee of a favourable outcome for the
:-'
I
complainant. 14 It is enough that the comp~aint is arguable, in th~e·
sen~"if0~ ·s as
I
,
,
,
I
:
:
~\\
~.;..o· (l.~-rARIAr
?0..- .,_e,
.•~~---
/~
A
~o
.o
~
~
· di ©: i l
6 vi
Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, raising concern about the imprisonment o j ~,,e\a and\cfilling ft]~ his
release. A similar letter was sent to the Ethiopian government Ion 9 October 2012 by 29~ iffef'ent"Rongov<i;rfn,eu"'' '
organisations.
•
/
\ . :"101\/ 4-=RICt-'~ <?~';{7
14 M.S.S v Belgium and Greece (W11) ECHR (Application No. 306r6/09) para. 289
-~~~
13 For example, on 17 December 2012, 16 members of the EuropeanlParliament issued a publ!'•lttter fo then°•"'":_
•
18 IP age
I
:
•
---
"_ ..•
The African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.inUO O a
ACHP
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rinhts. ·.
I
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
.
susceptible to being adjudged·meritorious ~sit may be adjudged unmeritorious upon
I
full examination of supporting and opposi~g evidence, and legal arguments.
79. In light of the above, the Commission has reri'ewed Article 80(3)(a) of the Constitution
of Ethiopia which states, "the Federal Supteme Court has a power of cassation over any
I
final court decision containing a basic error of l'aw" and Article 10 (1) of Proclamation No.
25/1996 which states: "In cases where they dontain fundamental error of law, the Federal
Supreme Court, sha. ll have_ ~he power of cassati[I n over: 1) . .
s of the Federal High
Court rendered in its appellate jurisdiction ... "
'
•
1,,
80. It is clear from the above provisions that, ~~~Q~~~j:·~~ss ·. •
Supreme Court to entertain an appeal, it}+1pit.bEfs~tiMied t
/t :,: .:~. -,. :·-"_ :.:~_-_, ·.
'"":\"·'-:•- _'._--·:
a final decision of the Federal Supr~pie·c~~}t.whi~!-is allege
basic/fundamental error of law
c:"< .tit i$·~itI~PJI?ea~against a fi,,;a decision of the
'
Federal High Court sitting.,.in its ap"
<;):'.:
te jurisai,g:tiqn, which is alleged to have
contained a basic/ funda~J~i~~l
error ofJ.~
•
,. ',.,,
,..,,1/V
e ter:"i;k~it? is defined in the oxford
A
)''
1
law dictionary as .. '. 7~~~.it~a?'i::~~~~iffr aid
, e~tal' meaning the decision
appealed againsft}nust be ~'rte witn • • seI).tial e;ior of law.
I
A.
81. The Complainant~ in this Communicatr
;'\"
! U~d on the case of Interights, Asadho et
\).;:··,,
'\
s
Maitre O.Disu v:·D.~C and argued\ithat 1 i e Commission should dispense with the
requ.irement of exfia.ilstion of local }krnedies because the Cassation Division of the
\':::r:,,,\ ... · .
'i,> ''t}·>, . .• .·• .· . ;Si
:
Fed;t~il}t§H:IBJ::~me Coutt .q~¾'l:lra~; jurisdiction over procedural and not substantive
'\f~:r v-,-:;·:::1: ; .;r;~;f~i~~;l:l'.J!i~-:?\->.:-
., "' _'",jjf.''. ;<·-- .., ·-
:
·t will only be a forivality with no prospect of success. The
issues and se'iziit'
if
Commi;~f~.u:ii'i~~e~ve •
the facts of th~ said case are distinguishable from this
<; ~:_\"
')
present cast\ In the former case, the c:ommission found that the Transitional
I
,·:;;c;\
Constitutiont~§\t1'treated the Supreme Coui-t of Cassation had the force of law on the
I
1!\J/-;
1st April 2003,'three months after the Commµnication was filed before the Commission
,
I
I
and thus its jurisdiction was not applicaqle to decisions rendered in March 2002.
Secondly, the 1·urisdiction of the said court J.as only limited to issue ~ d
i
if_~c·~~,t_#. ...,,.,,,
•::.;,'°<~
no t subt
s ance. • . .
I
·1~~~
~--;~;\,
~ ~-\ \
'
• of t h e C'assat1on
• D'"1v1.s10n
• • . o \t:,:::he .1~e
TI' d(~l'c;,
.,, ..;
• • d"1ctlon
82 . In th e present case, t h e.Juns
era ~oupreme
,
Court is over matters of basic error of laJ
· ···
.
.. ·
······. . ,
1
19 I P a g e
'"'"-e"'
African(4t~)
Urnorr'¼Ji
.
~~J
!\_
'· ~~"- ':~-~
ti •
' It, ·;,,,, ~~f ,i." '
The African Comnussi -""on HCiman and-P..~o. r;,le's;.
\ '
··v,VA,{<IV' Ri"'tit''
31 Bijilo Annex Layou , •~~~~~isfrfct,
West ~t-=ion Gambia
' "">i
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-baniul@africa-union.org
https:/a"chpr.au.int/0 (I &'I
AC
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
_
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
1
and not matters of procedU:r·e simpliciter. T~e Complainants have also submitted that
I
an Appeal was filed in the Cassation Divisicpn of the Federal Supreme Court on behalf
I
of the Second Complainant and on the 8 Janti.ary 2013, the said court did hot allow her
appeal because it found no fundamental errbr oi law but rather confirmed the decision
of the Federal Supreme Court which to th1 ef~ect, upheld the Federal High Court's
1
-~onviction 0n only one of the three charJes that were leveled against the Second
Complainant and varied the sentence
!y
;educintf;,~f:jttjJ}~. 14 to 5 years of
1
IJ~~;., '11t
imprisonment.
83. The Commission notes that the outcome of ht?ec,~nd A:R1l 'c,~~:t;;;:Ef/;~Rl}'rJ1fgo ~SJ show
, {::~,:\?:,;
:,'']~;>~,~'\
,~•,-,.'.~;;~j_~';:>,:.;\tJ?:.;;;;;:Jil]/>;
, '\ •• , •c•c'.O.
that, the Cassation Division of the Feq.elal Supr~rp.~ Coli ;t}l!~-\ an Appellate body
,--< .·./1~> ;
\~) . ,·\
··~:-;~'.;t;t:f;\,
capable of rendering judicial remedx1pn ni.afte~:5 whi~~/are not pu~~}rprocedural but
on substance as in this case.
"lrii;]?:f(,/1><
_;:i;;;•'"
'<}~~' .. ~::,\~{\
84. In light of the above, the Cotµmissio~t''ii:, s, that th~"¢i:t_ssation Division of the Federal
Supreme Court is availa\Bf~jJ:~:~t,-id also fit'.££
•·ye as ~1;_:..\}Je~n used by the Second
I ·-._. ',___
' .
Complainant. The latter-had th:-'·? -·oituruty £@1•;. :ave.1her case argued and adjudged
. ·. (' -:-; ."
,
>,
I· • , >ti~::?::k;m1+1
and succeeded ?}getting a confirm
re reg.tiction of sentence earlier delivered
•
-)j:;U,ii1,
&g{i"
-~?(;:~~
by the Federal S.upreme Court. The Co~p_l~tfl'ants do not also allege that there were
•i
:\
<jt:ff
impediments in pursing the remedie~ on ,J;; half the Second Complainant.
7
85. With,;Respect to the§ec:gnd Compla,inant, the Commission observes that her case has
'\/:;~r:;;;}\;,h,.
'<<··'{r\··'· .. \_,,
,-:\;;)··
:
gone':trt'-@.~g-1-1..~he whole:gc1pj:\!{f.j;ci£:judicial procedures and processes available to her
in Eth~~R;;:t;ff~ffliltJ.:wleder~i'~igh Court ~o the Federal-Sµpreme Court and then -to
\'}~'
. ::'C:? :
·T:.;:~Sif!/'.'.i;::/('.: /;.; ;;,;r?f
~
4;:/'
I
.
.
the Cassa\i81-:irDivision:.~.;fthe Federal Supr~me Court which was not the case for the
\,~~;{
First Compl\inant.
\fj\.,
.
I
86. In light of th~~;f:oregoing reasons, the Comp1ission is not satisfied that local judicial
<:;Y
I
remedies have been exhausted in respect ofithe First Complainant but that same have
•
I
I
been exhausted in respect of the Second Coµiplainant.
I
87. Since the conditions listed under Article 561 of the African Charte , ,e-'~1m~!»':~,e, in
•
•
_ 'JI,o-¢. ~,ARl,l\t '°~0~
line with the Commission's jµrisprudence, ~,vhen a communicat1:b'l~ <J.r8:s-Fl©t&:lee &. e
1
•
I
Ill'
/ ··--. '
"'·
of these conditions, it is inadmissible. In such a case, it i,tunle- •-·~·w_ , •. r1 tH
!
!
20 IP age
I
d~{~
'
~~ ~'a.\
¾_
I
1:/'
,,.u~
- /JgJ=i,
The African Commi tf~no,!J:H~d'~'op)!f,4
•
\~
S10JI( A .
~'r'-~ ~i{J_.B
31 Bijilo Annex [~~IJ/~~on;'0liY~_'.tgiD_w 1ct,
yY~~R]_gt~~,Ga~ bia
Phone: (220) 230 4361-~20)"441 0o 04
Email: au-baniul@africa-union,_Q[g
1l
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 1a1
;-"""'~,if) AC PR . .
J>,;:
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
I
Commission to consider the other conditio*s with respect to the First Complainant.
I
88. In light of the above, the last requirement or Article 56 (7) will be analysed in respect
of the Second Complainant. •
I
89. The Complainants submit that, a communication falls within the scope of Article 56(7)
if it involved the same parties, the same i1sues, raised by the complaint before the
African Commission, and must have bee~ settled by an international or regional
mechanism. 15 According to them, thls is notc::A:he',,~·c,~se with the present
Commµnication.
90. The Complainants also aver that in July 20]2,:·•· h
?{:f:~,,\,
~:J
. edia~:\egatP~t~hce Ii,:i,itiativ:,e, one
of the legal Representatives filed Co .-< , :,I: :{~~ 1of.i~1~~[th 'tN.Epi~' s·c:a~~tee on
,/)/ . .
••• _, ' ~>--
\.:iri~:iJ
Conventions and Recommendation~ ,(the·
ESCOis¢:ommittee}:),: on/behalf of the
_.,/\~:
,,it~r,\ '. ,, ~; •
Complainants, Woubshet Taye, ¥iirtt~;~chi~bytt~:{i'J ohan Perssoq:under UNESCO' s
16
·/(
"\;;,:'\).:,. j • ·. ··. ,,.
104 EX/Decision 3.3.
" ,...
'! •
.iltf;it,..
,,L,..,,
,..,.,.·
91. The Complainants sub;rriif1llth~t in acc;ot8.~Jlt¢,~ with ,, ) 0EX/Decision 3.3 and 77
.. ,,_
·•,·;<\..
<(.,.· I"{:-::>:>
,iri:r
EX/Decision 8.3, W,,BiB~J§,~ts outi!:teil?rocedure.t~fl'l;wJJNESCO Committee examines
the Conun~cf
f
"in a ;;;;,Sed s~j;)lt;zdhich tjicr~espondent State ~an be present.
92. The Complamaits submit that the part;y,,,:~llo files the Commumcatlon cam1ot be
\~~]tl+;:,,
·L,
\;~:t,>·
present at the exitJnation and recei;ves ~>letter from the UNESCO Committee after
v<i,::: 2 .
m::
I
the:.§.ession, summa~i~ing the main ' : ints that have been considered and inviting the
sub~.i~;,ibi} e0f furthe;·:2!~t • •>< ecessart and that this process is repeated until the
... , .. ,
. .. ..
I
matter i~ either: <lis~issed or otherwise resqlved.
-.
'.
..
~
,: '
-,_'}•·''.'\:_}'~·.'.'. .y . -
,. ·-.
I
93. The Complc1ii\ants s1ibfii.1t that while the C~mplainants' situation is being considered
½
~
i
by the UNE$.~O Committee, it should be s~essed that these proceedings are not of a
\•,
I
judicial natur~(?S is made clear by Article ~ of 104 EX/ Decision 3.3: "Considering that,
~
I
in matters concerning human rights within i~s fields of competence, UNESCO, basing its
I
I
efforts on moral considerations and its spe¢ific competence, should act in a spirit of
., .
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
.
international cooperation., conciliation and jnutual understanding, and recalling that
I
UNESCO should not play the role of an interntional judicial body".
94. The Complainants also submit that 77 E~/Decision 8.3 explicitly states that the
UNESCO Committee cannot take any £orb.al or binding action in relation to the
human rights violations it has taken under ~xamination:18 [. .. ] Unesco is not authorized
under its Constitution to take any measures in !connection with complaints regarding human
rights.
95. The Complainants aver that therefore, as tli.e UN~SGQ1;~ommift , does not have the
.
I
,
,,,¥:i1(::.
r:,::i
required mandate for dispute settlement and_is.. n~t ari"izj'.fe;n.attoi;ti:1!-J4,9,:_icial l?ody, a
J. ,• _~::~.::.: , :.,~. .>,
~,<\1f\U-~/ ~,--.~~l ...'>>>:.<·.>:'~:;.}li~::-!rl";•
complaint filed with the UNESCO Co~ir~e reg~~fiipg theJ~ig?lairiaritsidoes not
amount to a settlement in the sense gf ArtidJ~ '5p(7) o~}pe Africah~r~r.ter.
96, rn_ line with the Comrniss.ion's
ig;ilit~{:"1~>fb~·~:ftter to be s~#le'd '.n accordance
with Article 56(7), 1t reqm~;.i{h.~t the 'DJ;:~~!~~;,,or!Ch:atr!~~>t~d!, deahng with the matter
has considered the mattfers'.~md took a<''.fil~cision which: 'addresses the issues and
:,. '.
<._:/~\i::>~
,,{ t>F ~fif1t)/%
concerns of the Complainant, 1rl~:l,t;gj9g·the relief:(s,)J,~jng sought. It is not enough for
f\
·_, ~ •
~, .. -.
\::.,
-\:·;;~;:(•.,f::v-
~--~-:} ..:)r
the matter to simply be discussed byYfhese bodiesJ:tY
: •.·
·•,?.,::::·,
I
.,;;
97. The Cornmissiori\further observes "'th~£i~~;~:z;respect to the Communications filed
before UNEscq, .!\involves bothlCo~~lainants and others not named in this
Conµ:nunication. The ·procedure is also not of a judicial nature because its outcome
wil;k{~¾'}f:l~,~eso!ve or cli~rr#s ~he cla+ of the Complainants. The Commission
is of th,~ opihighL;{h~t since there is no ]evidence to show that the UNESCO is
":t.2~
/:3(3:r··": ••.:;•j)/.~~-t:\,~- ~_;/~
specifical1~f§1ealing w~~~p7 or is intended t? deal with the allegations raised in the
0
present co'~¥1unicati~ n then it cannot be ~uthoritatively concluded that the matter
has been deaifJ:~.nh or is being settled in ac~ordance with Article 56 (7) of the African
C~rt~.
v
:
I
I
I
Decision of the Commission on Admissibility
I
~
~
0
t.
·it, ,.
~~
1s 77 EX/Decision 8.3, Art. 4, p. 14
22 IP age
,':f'.~'a!!:'-l
Afrk;an (;~ti)
Urnon\.!l!
... ,
I
~
'O,y A>'Rie,r,,.~
The African Commission ~l'J.i~~:e'eo • es
..... ~ i g h t s
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
htlps:/achpr.au.inVO O a
1;ffe"'~~ AC H
i\,'
• African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
98. Inview of the above, the African C6rnmissiqn on Human and Peoples' Rights declared
I
I
the Communication Inadmissible in respec • of the First Complainant and Admissible
in respect of the Second c.omplainant.
Consideration on the Merits
Complainant's Submission on the Merits
Alleged violation of Article 7
< ... :,,,
,l:: . "<;,,;JJi~ht.
99. The Second Complainant alleges t~;;;the'Rr~J;de~x'.~tate violat~;~it\f·right to a fair
trial which. led to a criminal le~~l42~ijf~:,s tlaf"'~.~~;/~bala~ced an~pr~judicial to her
from the time of her arre~~[;,(tnal and<t~~~gh,oub~~,rpeno,d of imprisonment. She
stated that the Commissi0nh din Articleii • i'v,Eritrea19 that:Article 7 of the Charter is
,,,'._ ~;,-·
<~;!( ~. \ :.'./.f'.;t?' ,,/;'.~J::•1-:
;:: .,'
a non- derogable rigbt)which e?Jr\::tNttoe depir-ft rq;rn for any reason, in whatever
.'S•"" :::,):'
""'(§,f:{
I
'ii
:
circumstances arid in Mgwanga Gun • t al v. Ca
oon, 20 the Commission also stated
that its protectipri is important to ensur •
1
She submits that'the_provisions of Ai\ticle
,f the Charter have been further elaborated
:;:>\',
,,,f!rotection of other rights in the Charter.
, ., ,
by the Principles ~nlQ.!1idelines on the Rilht to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in
Afric;;I~or:r~:iple_~yJ;,tJ~~fui;ples or the Conditions of Ar~est, Police C~stody
and Pre~Tnal<Oe~eption m Africa (2015 P:irmciples) and Resolut10n on the Right to
·: ',
.:::y••:::_
.:::, ......,
I
Recourse:~11,g'.cFair Ttfat;(:1992 Resolution). 1fhat the 2003 Principles has read into the
,,:,;:,:·
-,~,\.\.:
/
. Charter the,:right to be informed of the re4son for one's arrest, the right to brought
,,, ,
I
promptly be£qi:e a court, the right to legal rlepresentation and defence, the right to be
1
>>>,
I
tried by an itidependent and impartial triljmnal and the right to exami:Er - ,, . have
examined the witnesses against them.
,
/F;"'u!JIAN Al!Jo
I1
', ,5?~
'
Jr.·
:
°Communication No. 266/03 (27 May 2009), para. 126
2
23 IP age
'?
s'
I
I
I.,!
I
t\
I
19 Communication No. 275/03 (30 May 2007), para. 98
~~~c.~-e."fARi~r
\"',,!.. ~.s'
("~
,.,.-.
II'.
©:;·;
v.,,
t
'. t
~ :c
s,.\.\-1.lP-
!!f
.
=a
·, ..
~· r:,,'f'
(,
•, •
i5
.,01? 47
~<,_, g,"
Otv A ►l<\CP.\
,c,v
$1,
'•.
'°~o,o
,__..._
' 7 0ll<f1WE ET
o'.'-'='
~
•
The African Commission on Human-and Peoples'
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 aa
ci!
I.
AC PR
I
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
100.
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
I
The Second Complainant also alleg~s that she was not promptly informed of
I
.
the reasons for her arrest and the charg~s brought against her. She was held in
I
detention for 76 days (21 June to 5 September 2011) and she learnt about the charges
l charging hearing". She alleges that the
for the first time on 5th September 2011 at
II
charge sheet was extremely vague re~ardiJg the times and dates and provided little
detail to substantiate the alleged terrorists' activities that she was accused of. It also
I
•
.·
i·.
,_./-:;'.:'?\~:
ha~ a li~t of ni~e ~non~mous witnesses witl~ut th~,su,mmaty;~~}i~heir statements a~d
a list a JOUrnahshc articles that had no bec1rmg vy:1th. the allege<l.charges of terrorist
I
'<'.·:::,
•
f
•
activities that she was accused of. Thereforr, e~i{!&hts rti:,p~Jo/i'?.Iti'1~cl:.'?f-.!!:1::Y~asons
of her arrest and the charges levelled ag~i)
~;:"~1¥~:'i,viol~;~:~h:.
\l:f;:t;t,
,,f;~·:.:\;'~?-
101.
•••
.,·. -'::?·;>
·"<b\';~>,
The Second Complainant furtner al,~ ,f!.~ that1:/!fte was n5\.,promptly brought
:.. <: ·:
;
~->:rt::wr<> .
;1;:J,
.
\ ·
before a court of law and was nqf,trieq withoafl~i;qfdue delay. Tha.fshe was arrested
~-· :,· ·:; '
:
•?.:,\;?,:-:-,
on 21 June 2011 but her first appearant~{in c'ourt was·'f~:~eptember 2011 and the whole
~ :\\\i\
.
··~/;$;~}:~:>- . yti''
°'s•.:-,'/'i:'*~:·-~:
trial including the appeal'eijq~d in JamlJlrJrl}?:Q,).3; lastfn~):(ipproximately 17 months.
'7:"-:: .
"f.
,<s /. •\
)~..\·· :\,•.,
i
-<.:r,.;-~-~~::;. , .
._.f:;v
She cited Liesbeth•.,;~~~~1:( and:'faus,sif Ep~rerffo(p; ....B[;if1ea21 where the Commission
. <ki' ,..r·
•v.,,::<,«-.-,
I
··:."' .• ~\.
.,· : .,.
underlined the{tmportance of the<rigl;lt to be promptly brought before a court.
f?f;t'
•·-rJ~:·_:/:-
I
•
Therefore, she sqpmits that her right to'oe p~9mptly brought before a court of law and
\:;''t
;,
''f ,·
be tried withouftiri:que delay were v\olat¢d..
t-)
'··:,;:(~{ti;{¾-::..
102.
-·,,,. The Second''(;''"·
',>:<"_<:."\,',,
.
·.-... '
I
lainant all,eges th~t her right to legal representation and to
.,,-/t'-}✓
'~!):<:><-.
:
adequa.-t~ly>p,r,epare fot'lie,~I.;9-~f~iace were ;violated. She. stated that she was denied
-~. \
·;·.,,,,·\,,.:{;~ "'': ',
.,,, ';;;,.~.J.:~--=
:
access t¢; legal':c·~vnsel during the first thre~ months of her detention before she was
., , .
charged
;,'''·· • ··.
. ·•·. ,. ,.
I
ww,< an offence, and during 'his time, she was subjected to many
interrogati6~? over a long period of time. She also had no legal representation during
'·,',
I
the charging'h~:afing because her lawyers ~.vere not given notice of the hearing date
.~
I
and she was not allowed to hold private m~etings with her lawyers or discuss certain
I
details about her case and also denied thel right to call two expert witness~s in her
I
defence. In supporting her argument, i!he Second Complain~ut~~' the
. .
d
. A
s I F t" I b h zr.r ~ .,.o~:~~"\"ARIAJ" '°~4,_
C omm1ss10n
s JUnspru ence m vocats an1 ran zeres 1on e a:1~0.~;,; Clf}ian .wa~mparniJ'. ,
I
ff
~~,:
\))0 ~Cl ·
·
'l-,v·.
7·-~
---------II
-,..,, .
I
•
•
~
21 ACHPR, Liesbeth Zegveld and Mussie Ephrem v. Eritrea, Communication No. 250/02 (20 Nol~ber 2003), pa-Pa 56.
I p a g ~ · ·········· ·····
24
··••···•·
Africanf£8i¢'
Union\Jv
··········· · · ·
··
···
I
[
1
I
5
~
~
t ~\
j.\u-uf'/s
The African Com mis ~~ ci~it~~::::~~f ,
31 BiJ"ilo Annex ~~tAorXt16"Nt>RhD1~tr,i_ ,·
,,., ' "'
f."' /,
Wes ·C:ol?st,,Regrdn ~mbia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 F'~f2,200t<l'105 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 illl
r,.CHPJl
......
~·::-,,/'
!
~
f
ACHPR, .
African Commission on
Human Rights our
Human and Peoples' Rights
Collective Responsibility
v. Burundi where the Commission underlined the importance of equality of arms in
o
•
•
I
I
I
criminal proceedings22, Media Rights Agen~a v. Nigeria where it held that a detainee
I
held for 49 days without access to a lawyer was a violation of Article 7(1)(c )23 and
I
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and tterights v. Egypt where it held that the
absence of lawyers for the accused persons rt the critical early i.nterrogation stage was
a violation of Article 7(1)(c )24.
103.
The Second Complainant also alleges that the,:,)3-~~~brj4e_:n.t State violated her
right to be presumed innocent in that the E~iop~i~111~:itiJ191nducted a negative
1
publicity campaign against her aimed. a~ ,Pr~juEfici~g~(ft;t~_,;,~-Y.fS~m~~~q! hE:{, trial.
Government officials includ~ng the Prime•Jn~i~t~\ifa~e ;~~l[£c;~~;;~J~~~~~!~1aring
/~L:,, _: J:_·.,_ _
\.:·_: _
'<-<l:t:~}:\~.
their guilt prior to the end ·of the trial
and
.a·
documentary
was{snown
on national
/,
1·, l .
•
•c.·•
television accusing the Second ~p·ri{;,q,inarit asi,t<:rp:>tist. I~.is also ~leged that during
v~
the trial the prosecution fai~;ef entireiyi~:~f~ch~rgih~ftt1~ burden of proving her guilt,
( (~\;;};,
''
+4_\~;~1f41,
I
·•, •• :• '.• , '",,.,_ , / •
instead, she was expecte«;:Vt0}r~f1~.te the b9,§.~~G§~J1Ilegatioij~;µ1ade against her. She cited
diil}?;f~{Vs~ilaise & ffIRD A (on behalf of
the Commission's jttris)"rud~~•~;ti~sf
former Dergue offi,cials) v Etfiiopia/5 '.JJ,~igJJ.ffice of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan 26 and Media
Rights Agenda v:}/igeria27 to support ~:ii~f~9-1ents.
-~
104:
~.~
The Sec0,;tt\~omplainant r1'~1Ieges that she . was not _cried . by. an
md~p~ndent and cowpet~nt tnbunaJ JJecau~e the government interfered m the Judicial
pro~~~{i:tt}~~P;,ls of ne~a~~/~::p'lJbU:ci~ again~t her, countless fair trial violations during
:/;',
-t,~<<:·/,. :Z:'.'··s-.,
:
the pro~~,edingflttlu,c,b the Appeals Court failed to address, existence of a pattern in
Ethiopia,ie.)r'.~-;ri~bit;:;'.~Rtict journalists uhder repressive laws for their reports and
, ••• ,
;>"'
commenta;i~~ on matters of publlc inter~st and cases of sentence of owners of
\A'.i.
I
Ethiopian pti~,~i¢i)tions to lengthy custodifl sentences in abse~tia without any real
her right to be tried~. :,~.,..,
~irale.
endent
evidence to support the convictions. Therefore,
·
,
... N"Al\lo
:
I
I
Communication No. 231/99 (6. November 2000), para. 27.
Communication No. 224/98 (6 November 2000), para 55
24 Communication No. 334/06 (1 March 2011), para. 133.
2s Communication No. 301/05 (7 November 2011).
26 Communication No. 222/98-229/99 (3 May 2003), para. 54
27 Communication No. 224/98 (6 November 2000), para. 48
22
23
25 IP age
, o ~o~~~"fAR1.qr
'°~o..c,
, ~ 6:>«; _...,.._..._
~
l
.
(.l.
~
X,
t ~ .
<'<I\
~
~~~)\\
l~/
., .... •
t~~
i 1
l
5 en
0
•. "'.6- <½-s
~<.;,; ;f
s1
0A1,1,:RIC.l''t:.~ <v.§ .
,,
(. '.,.
'?'r
.
···,./'OlefMf[10~
The African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
htlps:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a.
,:/ ,. , /\CiHPR
_j>,.CHP~
~-. ~
·.t
J African Commission on
Human Rights our
o
Human and Peoples' Rights
Collective Responsibiiity
and competent tribunal was also violate4. She also referenced the Commission's
I
jurisprudence28 to support her submissions[
I
105.
I
She also alleges that her right to exdmine a witness was violated because the
trial Court denied her the right to call two efpert witnesses who would have provided
expert opinion regarding whether her activities amounted to journalistic work or
otherwise and did not provide any reasoj for the denial. She also submits that the
·
I
,s,~<.r;r\J;., .
Federal Supreme Court failed to recognise the relev p.ce1'of;:t:ti::~, expert evidence on
appeal and instead speculated on the al:,i~ty of,ili ;i3l~~e s;;~}vitnesses to refute
prosecution evidence and concluded that t1~.?r~o11:~, Cdri{tI(:~~Kllff:aG~~,}~;:'.:;iid not
amount to journalistic work. In support, of' fer subrri{~fJons>s&:,iis_l-:ed the deJfsions of
the European Court of Human Rights 29 in tl'.riirregard .. •
<1"11ili:•\,
•
Alleged violation of ,Article ~/
' ,,lift>,
106.
•i,
'
·,<:;,,.
.d"
! •,- )7:D:t< •
, ::;~~?:, >
d'.> ,. I
' '<.::,;; ,;~:;
i
'<:·.h':· . ><.,
u<,'Y
The Second Compfa.i~;~t\t submit,~:fff~!:.:#1e RespC?n~ent State has violated her
right to freedom o!~JlE~~~io~1{~f1~;d linc;;c~~1fJ6fthe Charter because she was
prosecuted, det~:}n.ed and \~onvict~ai~:qn baseless,}~fi~rges that were solely aimed at
punishing her £~*\ her legitimate jour~i1i~,. / :wor~. The Second Complainant submits
,
~~
that the Commi~~f~r,i has elaborated~the q~ligations of State Parties under Article 9 of
the:;C~~rter in its'(~tql~r~tion of P~il~ciplesl on Freeda~ ~f Expression in Africa and
,
.. •• -. ,
··.\<.,".
-:1
'_>
,,;:/-~,/
I
made,, referer:i:ce t0. Arfic}ey:cJ•]0!,h'ereof which
I defines Freedom of Expression and
,,
,,•
,
,,.,,,,;;,0•b•V
Infor~~tt;~-, 'a(~·K';i, ,fCl, fundamental and inaFenable human right and an indispensable
~" :' ~
,
,•
"'', ~ ,, ,.
•
,·' ·,
I
component_ofdemocracy.~~ ?ild Article 16 thereof which obligates State Parties to make
'
,
' •/
every effort):o give practical effect to the p~inciples outlined in the Declaration. That
,
',
the importance: 0£ this right has also been {onfirmed by the Commission in many of
its decisions s~ch as Constitutional Rights P,:oject, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media
"'ut:'ANANop
~O.o
~O~ ~~"(ARIAT
'
'
f/.c::;" "t,~c. ~
I~/,~.,
28 Wetsh'okonda Koso and others v. Democratic Republic of Congo, Communication No. 281/03 (~ZfMaypoq(fij~)l 79i
<'~.
1)
,g, ci ,
29
European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR"), Popov v. Russia, Application No. 26853/04~f~Juli 200~),,,ij~ra. 188; § ~ ,
ECtHR, Bocos-Cuesta v, The Netherlands, Application No. 54789/00 ~10 November 2005), pa ,:'.?2-7-3\and EC~J:;tR.,. Wfet,zbick
v, Poland, Application No. 24541/94 (18 June 2002).
I.?~ \:'- -,;,.u-v•'j iJ If/
Z6 I p .
age
~A·":":""
··
~~~~{:i{J,
.
- -
'-".i,. '.~.s,;'...__/",~() '<v
The African Commis (on on't4umaljl:•arttPef<,:ples'
,
~~Ort!ME f.• o~_!.,;~hts
31 Bijilo Annex Layo'l:tt;,;~0mbo~,9t:th District,
West CoasfRegion Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Riqhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibiiitv
I
Rights Agenda v. Nigeria, 30 Amnesty Internati?nal v. Zambia31 and Scanlen & Holderness v.
I
Zimbabwe. 32
107.
:
I
,
The Second Complainant also subm~ts that freedom of expression constitutes
one of the essential foundations of a democlatic society and may only be restricted in
certain circumstances in line with inteJnational standards. In support of her
I
submissions, she cited the case of Konate v Burkina Faso33 where the African Court laid
the three-part test in determining the restridtions; whis;lj:~;~;(tfi\rJ:,.ether the restriction
['f
I
'\:: .<\
was provided by law, (ii) whether the restriction ~~i\rea,fl legitim~te purpose and (iii)
whether the limitation was necessary to acJiey,J\th~ se/6~j~t!v~.:~~d that_this tept was
~l:~r~r~t:~t/r~t,t' .<>,
•, _ ~~- --~·-- ·~ . . _~ ~-~ ·: ·--. -~ ·--also applied by the Commission. 34 The,1pecond··G2,9m.plai:ti.ant ~vers thatsne is an
v~
·< • ~ '._
'\t~f\
.<\/i.r{ .~.:,.
,·
accomplished journalist who is well l<ri'6whfq1::J1er cr\ij~al stanc~·on>the policies of the
-:i:i)~'.~tt\:.
('' '!/
/y
'\'. .•
/"'
Ethiopian Government and as .~j::~$µlt, wasf/§~PJ~cted to thre~ts -and attempted
intimidation to make her ab~nd~ne~',Jt;jq~rn11~:t:)~9t\but she w~s undeterred. She
.,/: ,-,
<-~,)';~~,;-
-~--~--.-{~~..,.. . ,,.:]
avers that she continued,:her:work and .ptll;Uications ah~i,,,founded her own monthly
•
•1,,
<::.r ., ,:".>- I., . ·,. .
.-':;•'
magazine called C½f7crzge,•>~nd est~bl!s9ed her owrtpu,blishing house but it was shut
down in Novemh';:·;~~o~~gfie the~\)6rked ls edi;br;~; Addis Press, columnist for Feteh
c,
I
···..:: ·· "·.
,'./
Newspaper, re£tj~ar
contributor to th~-~thiopian
Review, all of which were also shut
",,..
. I .·
down. That as a~~~:iJlt of her work, s~e w~s ~inally arrested, prosecuted and convicted
,:}t\
.
ts
I
of conspiracy to c'o0mi.! terrorist ~%~s and participating in a terrorist organisation
'·,c.:t'. t: 'F·\,,.
". ,", •. '
.Ji)'
I
unde~:\t}:te 20,Q9 Terrorism]tf:f~e}~Jri~tion (Rroclamation of 2009) and Criminal Code
, a
\
, n
"-.
~• ' ~
,.,,,,._, •
[_:<~ ~__,},;..;,>•-
respectively:·< ... , :'_-,, __ "
',,,<\
108.
"
. • ,,
~~:~e~~~~-C:6ajiili~ant submits thrt the restriction of her right to freedom of
expression-:4id not meet tll-e any of the lconditions provided above because the
restriction wafnot provi~ed by law, it did 1ot serve a legitimate purpose and was not
I
'l'i\h~/1-N Aldo p
:
•
:
'• _..,oY<..~1ARIAT
I
'
0~ !f,.U"
~o
~
30 ACHP~, 0edia Rights Agenda, Constitutional Rights Project, Media :Rights Agenda and Cons~fig'fon~r:;,~Gt v. Nigc!-~·a,
Communication No.105/93-1~8/94-130/94-!52/96 (31 O~tob~r 1998) (31 October1998), para.
sifg
31 ACHPR, Amnesty Internat10nal v. Zambia, Commumcation No. 2lfl98 (5 May 1999), para( ~4
32 ACHPR, Scanlen & Holderness v. Zimbabwe, Communication No. 297/05 (3 April 2009),
Pll~- lJ.0
/~\ )-g ~ \
§ ;:
~!,
. i\-~
c:-
33 African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights(" ACtHPR"), Kondte v. Burkina Faso, Appl~~f_io~~o-~(5l
1
~.
December 2014), para. 125
I
""&.·
~.Sto
~~<:.-~ ,§''
34 ACHPR, Monim Elgak, Osman Hummeida and Amir Suliman (repreSented by FIDH and OMCT) .. 'uqq_v~o'H{\if~iciltion
No. 379/09 (10 March 2015), para. 114
I
•, ,
r.:E E
,
27 IP age
f
The African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/acl1pr.au.int/O·O 1!:11
ACHPR
o
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
necessary in a democratic society. To substantiate this argument, she avers that the
I
Proclamation of 2009 does not meet the stanclard of being provided for by law because
it contains broad definitions of "terrorist acts" in Article 3 thereof and "terrorist
organisation" in Article 7 thereof. That to meet this criterion it is not merely the
existence of a rule in a national legislation Jut the law must be sufficiently precise so
that individuals would be able to regulat~ their conduct accordingly. The Second
Compl~inant also submits that the various Jriminal ~{f¢i{{J~ili~1~~ in Article 7 thereof
read together with the overly broad defiJtion q.£1:fi~~~g;rist a~~~{tn Article 3 thereof
!
~~?1q;!,\-'. /\;
,I{ . ,:'.
results in creating an ambiguity in scope "'t~§3/;~,tes fti:l~j:iP~i~}~);t,~fJ:,~l/;;1~ber of
the public to know whether his or her a5tio,~ faff1Yithin thei:~~~,pe of the-law or not.
She further submits that the provisi
as many activities of everyday lj_t.·,,"'
nfre'f~t\>, a w/~,; varie~~Ji&i,tjmate conduct
~nuib~r~t~'.d:fif1erein. That t;iProclamatiori of
1
J;i~t;~i~ ~f
2009 also fails to d~e sr.<lif:c term; ~:,:1(~ch
Pli~ation being ope~ed
to abuse such as agamst>m~l]}l;?ers of ~~)fil, •·• ia. She a.l§Ojsubrruts that the wordmg
used to describe i:t,e #ii!f'.t
ii\,1tf ~
bf ''!(~ '~pecific. That the phrases
"intending to ad1/dnce a political, religi~'ft,~,pr ideological cause", "coercing the government,
intimidating the public or a section of the ;~ij)~~,~·~+destabilising or destroying the fundamental
political, constitutiqrr,1 or economic or s8cial,t.fi~titutions of the country" or" destabilising an
instttttt: are br~l&}~rcific ~~;set n4 borders.
109.
_
_
\{~~::f~t~~It:.,~:the afo;r~m~;1t10ned, thi Second Complamant submits that the
restrictip:n of'fi¢r,!:J1;e~,dom of expression on the basis of the Proclamation was not
\\ <ff:;;,-·,!/,,J:,i:Vit:,,?';,
I
provided'ip.ytfaw and'fij\is;;constitutes a violation of Article 9 of the Charter.
.Jt,"
\:"/i:·/
110.
'
The Second Complainant submits, that the restriction of her freedom of
expression dd;~~r:not serve a legitimate inte~est. She submits that whilst the protection
··,7
of national security constitutes a legitimate ~nterest, the Respondent State has failed to
I
demonstrate a direct link between the expression and a specific thr~··t~et~ust a
i
~.f'o't\ "' .. ' ,,,."'o
.
.
. 'il'r.i- ~ e,%EiAR14};T ~
35
mere risk. She referenced UNHRC General Comment No. 34 w1}1cli:-stat@s 'vvn1 ,
A
State party invokes a legitimate ground for ~estriction of freed;Jff1
eX:r-~~\
i
,·
'
<-•~~
I
~~
!
~y
un
~ ~~t ~~
35 Para 35
...... j
28 Ip a g C
I
1-u-U!\
m,:g
c::i
G')
fI
<5,;f
g:
s,
...,_,,__,,... r.:,,0 r,,
:s,o,.,. -~0
(
..\•'Rl(.P.\tl . v<:/
The African Commission q~Auman
and,;:ge'6P.I s'
•
- t.1~11= ET t...._... ..9• ,,.. ~ R i g h t s
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Koiii1roYorth District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr 1au.int/O O //Cli
,;,~~!~~t~~
ACH PR .
/~ African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the
I
necessity and proportionality of the specific acti?n tqken, in particular by establishing a direct
and immediate connection between the exp~ession and the threat." to support this
submission. She therefore submits that sh~ was only prosecuted and convicted for
doing her job as journalist and this could nbt serve any legitimate interest under any
circumstances.
111.
The Second Complainant submits that the re~~Jct:fi&~~f~c1s not necessary in a
democratic society. That the JohannesburglPrincijl~f!:~n Nati6¥~l Security, Freedom
of Expression and Access to Information (Jb~'}~~~?~:~~~~}1J:5¼:J,t~~)'.;2J::?I8Y,tdes !;\}at the
I~ ~r.:r:'.t _ ,/-c : .;·. ';:,_
'~<:{\i::i(
·- ··'.\c,<t\;: >;?~r~::0~t~)>•,:'
restriction sought to be justified on grou~ds o"f•natic;mal 's~pA:r~ty is nc5t:7;fe-gitimate
unless its genuine purpose and demqnstra:J/~;e,ffect
is t6 prote~f:'.~-:~~rµnJry' s existence
or its territorial integrity against,,th~·u_s~ or J~~1r:;pJ{f~rce, or its ca~~cit; to respond to
the use or threat of force. 36 fJJ>e subnJfu,~~~-the ~~fe~d severity of the restriction
or sanctions is also relevartttn assessing:::@{~(proportibn~lity of the interference and
·; , •.. ~--\-,
..· ·/ I•;"u\, ·.
.'.' . •,
referenced the KongJ~'-~~1$,~ wherfth,t:African Go~rtge,ld that harsh criminal penalties
-~~s~,,,-;..:.-;,•-~:-.:-,..,.:."i,~t\~..
,_. .'. \..
I
--~~-, '_-,.;i/'
imposed on ~~ffate on charges···9f}~:,fimatiof1_,,, represented a disproportionate
interference wit~;,_~s right to freedom dt~~-p;~ssion.
·:' .\
112.
,,
,, .j.:,,
She also s·~9~its that none of\~er qitides have incited violence or can be in any
way.J:!_nderstood ~ii~ttJyeat to nati;hal se~urity. Instead, her work contributes to a
politi~~: \iep~(e that
·;!tt\f;j/~Th/t~~f;ffy den+ratic society. Therefore, her prosecution
and convictio~.tinde~·.Articles 4, 7 and 9 of ~he Proclamation of 2009 and Article 684(1)
•..,
, : , . "·- . .
I
and (2) of,th,~Criminal:§ode cannot be co1:1sidered necessary to counter the threat of
terrorism anq. to protect the State's national security and thus constitute a violation of
her right to fr¢~dom
of expression.
; ..
,,.'
Alleged violation of Article 16
Q
"'
36 Principle 2 (a). See also principle 6.
i"
29 Ip a g C
I
I
~on ,. J:l19J2.!3JW• eo_ •. 'I.'
L
l)(R1g-ts
31 Bijilo Annex Lay~~K~~strict,
West ~t'Re-g1oh Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
The African Comm
~
https:/achpr,au.int/0 0 a
-~~..':l__~ii.
ACHPR
l African Commission on
¥
113.
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Human and Peoples' Rights
The Second Complainant submits thrt her right to health was violated because
I
she was diagnosed with tumours in both :breasts but not given adequate care and
I
treatment whilst in detention which contributed to a significant deterioration of her
health. She also submits that her conditi0ns of detention were inappropriate, she
I
'
suffered delays in receiving treatment, rece~ved inappropriate post-operative care and
insufficient medication. and was not ttansferred to an appropriate specialist
I
.
. •..
,
establishment for treatment and care, was not given fqllow.;.;qp ;appointments as they
were cancelled, was not seen by any medJally ~a1.J~~-~perso~~l post the operation
•
•
,.~· .: . . . . ,
_t.''~t
and her medical file. declared lost upon a reg1,1J!st from,the Qq)llmissiqp. to rpake it
•
.,xi:r(f;\Yt',;\'.":ff:t::..
':, .. "r/::: ·~ •• •.. ~.-... :>'
available. She also submits that as a re~¥:Wof tlie'.)Jtg,~r tre·atajent and care ··and the
/~b5.::'.h/~)2;;;\, .
\--:,:;~:;1}:i
•,_ ·., , •,.
/\/'
\
horrendous living conditions in th~ 1:frisdn;:~~be Wa§;;,,:~uffering· -from fibroadenoma,
., .~ ,-:
: "\~f!{t>~
.,
typhoid, chronic gastritis and sir:ivst:o:s:~t tlle tiffi~);;~p:e'was releasedJ.n 2015. She relied
amongst others on the Comwission':~;!11:~lples a~v:'. . i~elines on the Implementation of
j' /
''.'-,\~~l•b~.:. •
• ':\_,
\\;,;/~:_>\;',, •~ v,.:l?
ECOSOC Rights in the Cha1;teb,0f 2011, Pµ.tohjf::and Moore)v)The Gambia37, Media Rights
'\..
'~: .' .. •..
·•.'~ ;·
.:,:.·,,..
'
))/
Agenda and others -q,,t:Jiggria38, In_ter-national: Pen.'eartd Q.thers (On behalf of Saro-Wiwa v
"'<tiP"'" . .»,:,:.:,·:\""·
• . <.
I
,\': ;,.• /
39
Nigeria , Mala'llii;~African Association-qhd, Others v lyiauritania and Monim Elgak, Osman
Hummeida and 1i\~ir Suliman (represen~~diy'flDH ~nd OMCT) v Sudan in support of her
submissions
114.
':)tfo,
\\~1
'
:b
\ii{!::
•
\t
~/;
,:, i' ,<S•
_,-
/;
__ The Second'';Qg91plainant al~j;f subn:1its that she suffered both pecuniary and
-~,;-:., ;:,.
,t/X
'>J:{/:;:-1))~~
non-p~cuniary damag~·s/~s:r:cl)!'.~~ult of the alleged violations resulting m her
'
•
· • · . : , •• - ✓,<
imprisoi1ple:ri(·~fl9'1::~~1ould be awarded :damages. She alleges that due to her
', . ,.- ,.',•' • ",..:-. :,. ,, ,. -:,
!
imprisonhl~rif for 49 'm9nths, she was prevented from continuing her professional
-,,
: ;,·
wok as a jotifnalist, high school teacher and tutor and therefore lost income to the tune
,
of ETB 327,36Q;;s,he was also prevented froJ continuing her studies in political science
•
, ,
)'
I
I
at the Indira Ghandi Open University School of Correspondence which she had paid
for as well as receiving .relevant books for the course which she had ordered. That she
I
eventually had to terminate her studies beJause she had no chojee 0 \\\-\UMANAN0 ,,
I
a,;,'iF e,'il~,-AR14,- ~o
1
/F0
~
37 Communication No. 241/01 (29 May 2003), para 80
[
38 Communication No. 105/93-128/94-130/94-152/96 (31 October jl998), paras 89-91
39 Communication No. 137/94-139/94-154/96-161/97 (31 October 1998), para. 112
I
I
30 IP age
'•
~
Ur,J- ~of()
I
I
/
l
~\
\:ie
· ~•
~c.!, i \.. ·:,,.\}&\
,,~
~
"'
~
'i,j,
---
':t,i
ig,
i
~ ~
~
en
Q
':>
<,
The African Comm1_?si0Al'o,B J!luman aQ_a1p~pp. s'
~ <. 'Al 4,.1ucP.'>:< ~vR(ghts
31 Bijilo Annex·f'a.u~~K.QIT,!QOJ~~strict,
\/ll~(i)ga§.t!Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.inUO O a
ACHPR
\i
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
I
115.
She further submits that she is also e~titled to non- pecuniary damages because
I
it is well established in international law that where an individual suffers physical and
/ or mental harm as a consequence of a ~each of their rights, damages should be
available as part of the possible remedies. That she suffered serious and debilitating
physical and mental injuries as a result of Jhe acts and omissions of the Respondent
State, particularly the· conditions of her deJention, her treatment whilst in detention
including failure to provide appropriate mbdical assi§tf~i~~:tw~<:i,. a serious impact on
'
her life.
116.
_,,;:(),;:)
'<, .··,,,;~ ,}
,,'._::.'t:;i~'·. .i_, _~'.,.___
-·
1
_)_.'_._·_
!:~·::·i/••
The Respondent State did _not sul~it, on th~::,~~r~.t{:~!tWl},-tr~.,~!p:1eline
:fit~>~:
stipulated in_ line with Rul_e 108(1) of_ t~~ ~~~~lon_s
Prcii~dtfr~ 2010.
However, prior to commumcatmg t1J:~ CoID{l!N~s10n s,ciec1s10n on,&9,;rmss1b1hty on 17
:(~(rr
I
,,,
>,'...
F'·
-,~~/:~: ,;;~r
November 2016, the Responde:n,~:St~J~ filed a motibri to dismiss th,e·Communication
•
·e;\;c:a/,,.
I
·\.. ·•;;..
•
dated 6 October 2016 and re.ceived at"'itfl~, Commisslon~s Secretariat on 1 November
t;~\\.t •·
2016.
.
s<,
-~
..··~;:~:
. i~~~~-\~;/
Respondent St'}te's Submission on%f:p.~,Mqtion t9<t1.ismiss the Communication
117.
The Respq1;1dent State submit~•:l~,t;t~gr1 Communication should be dismissed
against the SecciJ~'-~omplainant be~_ause,}~;r 14 years imprisonment by the Federal
'
,. ;>.
•
I
Higl\S:ourt was recluced _to 5 years by the Federal Supreme Court on appeal and she
was 'r~i~-~s¢g,on parole'ii1/}ult.2P15' after sdrving three years out of the five years. As
'<11) "··~;.~::-<?!\·--,"'.:,:,..
!
,,,.,•,,)~'•
•
a resuH{gf hel'r¢t~:~s-~,, the Communication should be dismissed by the Commission
because
118.
i~ftf~~~i~fi/5£ action.
The "¥Respondent
State also submits that the MLDI filed a similar
~.,
I·,
,,
communicati6i1;;at the UNESCO Executi~e Board and same was considered and
r."Fl
I
'
,.
dismissed during its 197th Sessjon held in October 2015. It alleges that this is contrary
I
to Rule 93 (2) G) of the Commission's Rules pf Procedure 2010 and should therefore be
I
dismissed because the matter was determiited by another internaJi@lil.al~noceeding.
119.
~utJIAN~"'
I
The Respondent State further submits on why the Co:rrn!n:tfnj4:;a{fu'\\1s~d '. also
.
•
-ll/'J
l~ u \\ lg ,
'Q
,0
be dismissed against the First Complainant. However;) sirrt th~issii'fi. as
declared
31 I P a g e
Afri~nt;J',i':i
Urnon\Y-i
the
case
against
the
i
~ ?, \
First
•
The African Co rfiis~ton,,e_n
•.
-
\.,,)},i
• ~,.-:-,'
~ ~~
r.UiMfn; d9'eo~ •s'
"3'.s;,{) ....__.,...,- ~(:> (Rjphts
31 Bijilo An, ex t~yo'i'.Jt\,f&9,.,rl)_b~N~,Sl~0,_1strict,
~e.r;!,f9:~1k~t!Qj.o}l~ambia
Fhone: (220) 23D~@J::.F.:ax:.~?Z0) 441 05 04
Email: au~mrr@africa-union.org
https;/achpr.au.int/0 {a a
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Respondent inadmissible, it will not be nece~sary to summarise and analyse the issues
I
raised therein.
I
Second Complainant's Response lo the R.lpondent State's Motion
120.
The Second Complainant submits that the Respondent State only reiterated its
submissions on Admissibility which the Cobmission~:1.J~~!-~f~~>-
considered during
its deliberation on the Admissibility of tie Co~,nicati~n , d has declared it
partially Admissible during its 20 th Extra-O /d.
121.
•
•
r ... s~:i~~fi~~~!,Y
.;:
-.- .
The Second Complainant subm1ts,,1:t,
.;1g:7:i~Ju1;; 2016.
~«~~}f,\I}(~ I
;'~:: •••
,'.~~{!f::r.j,:~:;f~:7':j/
e«/S:?:wm1ss1Q:gf§ Rules ofcBrocedure
/;::::;~':l?)~::tt:·; ~
'"\j_i.;}~?
. ,⇒}~:it~:;:_\>-.
2010 and case law do not provide fo~. the 'p.QS,§ibility's<:,i@filing a h\QJ~Pnsfor dismissal.
l
,~:<r
:·~t:ft;:;~~1~>. _:~-t~:/
··<iJt?
>;(~~
The Second Complainant also r~jt~f.rat~s th~t it$};!~1:;guments were Jlfeady made and
~-
-_,-(~·;'.',\·,
''<;;-;;/"•.;:>,._
were considered at the Ag,missibility;:,st.!tge. Tlf~i~,~$,~cond Complainant submits
therefore that the motim;i-sh~~l~ be dis~~si¥~ :~itho~f;i~t)R~r consideration.
·,\,
122.
,r:,. ,.'
".',.,·t~~'.~
'-a'-,,·_, ·, • . ,
I
,.-,(;/
The Second ~,om,pJ,ainant~Jsq,.s,J1bmit,s that e"'~q)if the motion for dismissal was
"<."' ,.,}::,,\·..
,'.-~:. ,. ..r:->·~--M- •• i;.,:'-ft.(i,.,:-.,.
t
~-<: - _..,-·/.>"'
to be interpreteq{as a request for rev:j~\y of the de_~1sion on Admissibility, Rule 107(2)
,jJlfr,r
--;·-:'7;>':.}\~-.
I
,.
of the Rules of ~locedure 2010 of the Co,~~sion does not provide for a possibility
''!\"}{;
•
W·
\ / ;'..'.~{'
;;-+
of a review onc~~Jic,,Communicatiort;is dedared Admissible. She also relied on the
•
,:;;:;.\.
½i;
', i
.
.
40
Co~ission' s juris~5:,~~:~nce in Le~t~eth z1gveld and Mussie. Ephrem v Eritrea and
urg~4,,tJieX~oipmissi~if·i&~~'.t~m~§i)if·:;~ithout further consideration.
\'l,.
123.
•:;;~-~--'·· -... ~, ·,
I
<... ,,,.;1:,,..~'.;;:<;t:,;.:,>"
/4\~ stateg· e.~rlie!, the Commission does also not deem it necessary to summarise
and anal;~~Jli~· i~~~es;q'.i§{d in respect of t~e First Complainant.
,
'
124.
49
Communication No. 250/02, para 47
I
..... I""
321 Page
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Pec)ples' Ri~1t1ts
"
125.
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
On the 1 November 2016, the Secretar~at received.a motion for the dismissal of
I
this Communication dated 6 October 2016. The motion was submitted pursuant to
I
Article 56(7) of the Charter and Rule 93 (2) G):of the Commission's Rules ofProcedure
2010. The Respondent State's submits that the Communication should be dismissed
because there was no pending cause of actio~ since the Second Complainant's 14-year
sentence was reduced on appeal to 5 years and she was already released from prison
on 15 July 2015 after serving 3 out of the 5 y,ars. In ad~Jtibri;·ti(e ~me complaint was
submitted on her behalf before the UNESCO Executive Board. and the latter has
1
considered and dismissed the Complaint.
.!:,;:_:,;;j>,;::•t.- •• \'·- :: ·• /
/
·: •
•• ·, • • . . . . _
•·
,
126.
The question is whether this motiqJ;:11\it~~~~J:f~h.t and'b~it,be ent~rtairted by the
0
Commission? Article 56(7) of the Chart!; :fl~es "C~~unica~on:, relating to human
·r-(
,,/ ;A
.,
.'./~}~y
~<: , . , /
and peoples' rights referred to in.~r.ft~l~ 55 ot t ,,,.;;!i~rter received bfthe Commission,
shall be considered jf they" .,..:do not deal}v_itb/ case:fJ~~~]J)zave been settled by these States
involved in accordance 'l~it-b-t~~-;;!,ir_c_iples ot!k11:~r~.~t-er o/i~_~;;~it1ted Nations, or the Charter
·:•;;,
'(
, ,<,'. ,,,',
/',,~/
"..'',
4!.,.,.
,(,'
ti~~f~ Uhi~t°:i~h'e pro/ isif!l~s,:'°,{{1!e''pres~nt Charter". Rule 93 (2)
o! the Organizatfo:/lf
(J) of the Co~}ss10n s Rules of Prp_~-e~-~rl 201Q~also provides that "The Secretary
shall ensure tha#,§:ommunications addresse~,to the Commission contain the following
information " ..'~%'.:-n. indication that !'the coJplaint has not been submitted to another
\''?)t:~~'\.
~::
•
.
internptional settleme~t']:p:pceeding as pJovided in Article 56(7) of the African Charter".
•
127.
'·'.:<;·;';)/:.::);'.?:,...
¾.·•-.,.
,r'fJ:t(\
•
·~r_!i~!e. . _?6 (7) b;t:tJl\~t:S~~p.arter is c;me of the conditions precedent for a
Commh:qk~ti6;:)o· Q~ brought under A#icle 55 of the Charter to be declared
. '\
/'.
-,,
,, "-._..
I
admissibl~/ or:' othe~wi~~, whilst rule 93 (2) G) of the Rules of Procedure 2010 is a
.• .:
I
requiremerit:·for an individual Complaint to be seized by the Commission. In this
the Commission considkred
and decided to be seized of the
Communicati6n;• <·
. I
Complaint at.Its 15 th Extraordinary Sessiort held from 7 to 14 March 2014 in Banjul,
I
The Gambia, having been satisfied that it h~s met all the requirements under Rule 93
I
I
of its Rules of Procedure 2010 and same was officially communicated to the parties on
I
I
18 th
March 2014. The Commission also requested the parties-t-h~~ the
.
:
~~ c.~~,.,..~,~r
~o
:is;~:::::1:et~::::::::~~;:rmplTahinAafnIB' csu~,~rHwsd~ eps:,;
33 I P a g e
'"'"""
Un1on""'2)
~~
e
l
ncan
omm, Sl9nton~ uman an
eop es en
.
-e. % '\. p,.U-U+'- Rig'trts •
31 Bijilo A.nne -._ .'aym:th_,Ko,,'n:ibo_~o.r.ttfpNtri6t', i
•
-f-. est C0a.~t-~Elg[Q,r:1 ·Ga(!;\~~
Phone: (220) 230 ~~tF&x;,&2Q)J'l,ryJ/f4
Email: au=tfu1.1ju(@at'ITT:a;ur:iion.org
http;;J'a~.int/0 0 Ill!
.~S~~
( )ACHPR
\~
Nl African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
''¾;¾t?
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
,~
written Observations on the Complainants' ~ubmissions were received in September
2014. The Commission had during its 20th Extra-Ordinary Session held from 9-18 June
I
2016 considered the submissions of both p~rties on all the legs of Article 56 of the
Charter and decided to declare the Co~unication admissible in respect of the
Second Respondent having been satisfied that all the requirements under Article 56 of
the Charter including Article 56 (7) thereof were met. The Commission also noted that
the arguments stated in the motion were the samJltJt¥~~~n~s canvassed by the
'
//{~/%?
<:,~f\\i\
Respondent State at the admissibility stage. Furtpei#~:;tll~ Comaji~sion now observes
that the motion for dismissal was received 9nJ,Npv;~J}t::>20;t~Jfo:,i.'ft_e:i;;,it,had tifken a
,:<~· .:~ -~ "~~ }?::'\' ~,~ ··:
··~;:;~:(f~\t~ •• , ~L,;f½·~,~ .,;t:('.~~;?t~:<-·:1y)J/
decision on the admissibility of the ComD,lµ~katioriiw~ich de~}si9n was·'tak~n in June
f '..:'.;
r:· .,' ).,,
't'~'••; \
'.::.\]'(":;;;:::\
.,,,r ;l,,
'\·:/- ·.;.•
2016, five (5) months prior to the req~ipt otfh:e::i:notion.,
i'':: ·,_."/ .,
.,{(,,5
128.
-~
In Article 19 v Eritrea, the,,E.~$i2;9,pden~ Statet{jled a motion for dismissal of the
Communication in respons~ffo the ~~~~§sion'~-,,~~:~ue~t for the Respondent State to
:-,( t~
··<-:, ·, •·•,,
'"~r;1.;i1(l.
,,.
submit its written obsef:VatigJ'.:t}~ on th~,,,~&frRlainant'~{~ritten submissions on the
\:~{ :"f·::; \· ~
,.
' "\ ::·;\?}-.,,.
.,(f\>~
)', ;=·
merits of the Co~11.:¥~~tioit~i~h::/~i6\md~ ai{;:g~,M,gll.jeopardy. The Commission
'. .__.,: -- -
•
,/,~. /'
1
•
\\~}.·~1r>\;
~~~~·~:/f\,.)
decided to refuse the Respondent St~t~f5- request .for dismissal of the Communication
•
'...
'·<<)i.!}:-.,
I
.+
and held that t~~re is no provision in it§.)·-:~l~s to dismiss a matter after it has been
,"~: :,
declared admissipl.~f 1.
//'
' ~
',
129.
~-~t;-:)>/
~\
't;;:-,,~)n light of cill_}~~>~ore-men~i§ned, the Commission finds that the motion for
dis~fi}Jl~l$.I),Q~_ comp';~~~f'!'h:Jc\wfF6r the a~oidance of doubt the Commission opines
"'·~, ><· .·'. i/;~...
·1 ,'.'
I
that the\provist~n~-;t~,!ied on to bring the ,application are not applicable under the
•·. >
~/<\/'
"'';'';~··.::;-:;~/Y:t;.'i/•;:;:>}
I
circumstanc::.~s'as the:V'clt:\a:1 with seizure and admissibility of communications which
·;~ft
t:?:--'
the Commis~ion has already addressed respectively. Further and in any event, there
\:\.
is no provisi9hfih the Commission's Rules of Procedure 2010 which allows the
~~,
!
Commission to dismiss a Communication after it has been declared admissible.
Alleged violation of Article 7
41 Communication 275/03, paras 83-85
'
/.
lv~~-:~~'.~ AC H PR
-~~ ___ ?I} African Commission, or~
Human and Peoples Rights
~uman Right.s .~ur
Collective Respons1b1hty
~c;:u.1n;ffe;
130.
Article 7 (1) of the Charter provides that "Even; individual shall have the right to
have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs
against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions,
laws, regulations and customs in force;
(b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; (c)
I
the right to defense, including the right to be defen!ded by counsel of his choice; (d) the right to
I
be tried within a reasonable time by an imparti~l court or:Jribu:naU: It is clear from the
./ ~ ; ,
I
....._";
~
,,1,
provision that the right to be heard requires t),lat t~e.~O:IllplainaJlt,9r victim must have
I
---
'-z\
>\·7
.'·,,..,_
unfettered access to appropriate justice which: r.~lll2_ects and proteds·her/air trial rights
•
·•·/~~fYi:~;:~t\;;,;iit~>-l
'- . ~,
>•........., . . ~·
as prescribed by law.
.,.%<>::·· ··<<~i:C\
' '·
"v ~,
131.
,,
'-,.__·,.
The Second Complainant allegef~i~~f!.tjon oi';A~ticle 7 6f _the Charter because
.,_
·,;,/~,·.-,:~\-~
•. ~
(:·:>'
.
(a) she was not promptly infor!ll~d·:pf the 1re:a~~¥''for her arrest (b) she was not
...
··.::.
;
I
\_.:.. ,
'1
promptly brought before a cq,urt of l~wi~rn;:l ~er trikil!{¼a.s unduly delayed;(c) her right
_.,>
. . ~-; _.·>d~
·--(;\·:"~~-:-~~~ ~
to a legal representation·wa.~ violated;(g)\:~h~.~ right 'fo':lt~ipresumed innocent was
.. ,
• - ,_..~. ~. - .
, .• ·::
·;~~T1..: -~
.
/./?
violated; and (e) she was not tried •by an ind;epepdent artd competent tribunal.
/.",.•,
'
•
I
·.'
'I
'
. •
'> : .• . . .
r. ~:
,z. ,· \,.
l
Not promptly itif,ormed of the reasori.s:(9r,/;l~r,est and charges brought against her
j,,,>
,;:;~.it-Si.
'A
132.
The Second'1~gnwlainant allegks that she was arrested and detained for 76 days
'i:::i.\:,
~\
':
i ; ,,
·-:,, '."_r;v-.
./~·"'';'
'
I
effetti~e 21 June 201 i)'ir#g<?µt,k¢{Rg infoimed of the reasons for her arrest and the
•. '' :.
' •.--.
'-~-i-,~/:':f:\:,:-.\;r:'{:1,.:"
charge~·1evellec;fagainst her. She was only informed for the first time at a "charging
hearing;;\he,ld<on 5~::_s~pt~mber 2011. She also alleges that the charge sheet was
extremely\ ·;~gue regi~ding the times and dates and provided little detail to
substantiate the q.lleged terrorists activities that she was accused of. The charge sheet
also has a list of nine anonymous witnesses without the summary of their statements
and a list a journalistic articles that had no bearing with the alleged charges of terrorist
activities that she was accused of.
133.
I
-
The Commission however notes that the Respondent State~cl~~mi mit its
'
~~ f.~1'MIAJ" ~
written observations to the Second Complainant's allegati@ilS',Ll<tfoeit~er
re'h~ or
confirm them despite being given t~e
35 I P a g c
Afri;n(c;l:_'''.;)
Urnon~J{i
/fJ"/
I~\
i lflt
Jr?.
~J
~ ~
The African Co]mj_ssio on Hum'iin and/Pepple
l~ ~- \
,€Righi
31 Bijilo A i~La~~□t~b~,.No~~..,Dl§'tJ!j t,
• ~ West,CoasfR,~gion !'a. ia
p..\J-\}P1
Phone: (220) iSQ._4_3,91"'F'\i'f. (22Q,),-4'~1· 5 04
Emaij~•au:b'a°'n]Ol@afncactl ion.org
"lit~~u.int/0 0 IC!I
~:;'\ACHPR
,~~
African Commission, o~
Human and Peoples Rights
.r
~orti:i;n • .,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
opportunity to do so. In such a situation, the Conunission has always been guided by
international best practice. This was reiterated in Alhassan Abubakar v Ghana where
it held "like other international monitoring organs, where the respondent Government does
not provide any substantive information in reply to the petitioners' allegations, the African
Commission will decide the facts as alleged by the complainant." 42 In light of this
I
I
observation, the Commission will determine the merits of this Communication based
I
on the facts alleged by the Second Complainaht and s,UJ>port{hg:evidence provided.
134.
I
/~?
i
.
-----\~\,:\
The Commission notes that there wa~ a qelaf ·-·of 76 day~· on the part of the
.
. •
agents of the Respondent State before discl~~i11gJhe ieaso:ns ·for the arrest ar,i.d the
.,,.J,:f/1.,L:"';' _:Y:_:··.\
,,
... ,
• ,",,
-~
....,., .' -
charges brought against the Second Co~pl,~inant:<+}'ie, _questio:njs whetli.er -tKis delay
/1'.r .· ',, /.
<:\:.,
·,.
•.
was unreasonable to warrant a violatidn of Article 7 0£':the Charter;
. .. .:·
\.f \)·~t} ,,
.~(,~ /
~~\ '..
135.
In its Principles_ and Guidr.lir\~~i?~. the/Rig~;{f~ Fair Trial a11d'Legal Assistance
in Africa, the Commission pr,0vides tRat '(a11'yone whq/s:qrrested shall be informed, at the
.· •.•• .
·•: ','-'-'/
,:'.'·, . ,.
.
•
time of arrest, of the reasonE?fdr his. or her an:i';t~kiza..shall b~v;r'ii'wptly informed, in a language
•,
he or she understanq~,.:·bj,11ny ·~liiirges ,czga~~st!h:~,.or,_h~,;."'~;· The right to be promptly
/<--·~···•,-,;,>.
·<: ·\.
I
\ ...•
.
informed of the .f¢asons for \arrest anp.)l).e cnargef?\ levelled against an arrested person
~r:?
I
•/
is also reiterated\by the Commission Ii(its;~Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest,
·-..:).:i·· .• ;;,_
:
.!
\
.,./
Police Custody ·~id.pre-Trial Deten~,on i~ ~frica•. 44 This requirement is fundamental
'
.-<-,
,,.,.:
~
to the fair trial rigl:its :qf a person W~caus~ every person has a right to liberty and
sec~r:Hy sJ thE:! perso~ ~Jl:fu:\i;s,tiµ:9-i~~ subjected to arbitrary or unlawful arrest and/ or
•
;
,
' .
'"" l>.l '.ot.~.'.,; ,.,,,
•
detention. Ther~fore, where a person's right to liberty is curtailed as a result of being
-,
.. ,. '.,. • -., ......
.
arrested ~nci/or defainE:d'he or she must be promptly informed about it so as to
'"
provide the·: ppportunlty for the lawfulness of the arrest/ detention be challenged
promptly in a co.urt of law by the arreste~/ detained person, if necessary. 45 In Media
42 ACHPR, Communication 103/93' Alhassan Abubakar v Ghana,' para 10
43 ACHPR, Principles and Guidelines on The Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa - ~i_Qns applicable to
Arrest and Detention 2003, para 2(a).
,
~---
44 ACHPR, Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in~A'.friel1(fuifan1.l!hlG~1'~"1 es)
I
'
O' ,Ci -
"',l;,o
2015, para 4(b) and para 5.
•
,
,Iii§ i r o t ; ~
<'~
45 A similar requirement is provided in Article 9(2) of the ICCPR; The Constitution of the FE!a~fal DemoM.'~lfu_Repf~if.~
Ethiopia also provides that "persons arrested have the right to be informed promptly, in a jt§gua{e thf:1.!;nlrerstantl1 d~ ,
the reasons for their arrest and of any charge against them".
~
§ iii
\\d. ?;
~
~
!\
36 I P age
~"'"""
t~~~~:J};,
•
\ ~,,
J
The African Comnfis1ion:on,Hum~ andiPe~ple;isl
·~1.. ,;,<s-.s:~~()"Ri!t!),'
31 Bijilo Annex<• •~yo~t;~ombo<No1t~Q~tr,' t,
.
• est)e,9.!il?.h~~gion §~fubia
Phone: (220) 230 4 ~;F-,,ij.i:,~P~1 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
•
/~~-~-~t:~
I
AC H PR
~ African Cornrr1ission on
o
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
Rights Agenda v Nigeria, the Commission had, in expounding on the guarantees of
the right to fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter observed that the right to fair trial
includes, among other things, the requirement that persons who are arrested "shall be
informed at the time of arrest, in a language which they understand of the reason for their
arrest and shall be informed promptly of any /charges against them. The failure and/or
I
negligence of the securfty agents who arrested ;the convicted person to comply with these
I
,."'?..,.:'<\g>.;0,·,«,...
requirements is therefore a violation of the right to fair triql::'.~~;+~Wi!linJeed under Article 7 of
✓,;<}}t
i
""·tt~?t\
the Charter". 46 Further, Article 60 and 61 of the Chartefialso allows) the Commission to
•
I
"'
,,.(:
:,: .'\~.':· • '·:.
::::7
(<:\ij };: \,
draw inspiration from international humap,Aghts la~J/1}, sl,~!~~J:Ut:pJ!]$ appJicable
·\,:~;},~.: ti->-'
i
·-"'· ,:~;_;_:;, • ;•,r • .,.?\:;,-,,,r:t:~rr-
principles of law. In P. Gmnt v. Ja~4lca:··1:h~:;·1~um:a'.¥ttRtght~- (:brithlittee in
.;:t~- ·>k
"'\·;._, ,:_ ,,\
"'r~;~;;,(r,:>'.'•,
determining whether Article 9(2)A>6f tnf:;~!~CPR(was viola;f~l<l.J;eld that the
complainant's right was violate1.i1:f[;!~;¼~e ,~:~_¢.JI-t,e'.~~mplainant ~~1{only informed
of the charges against him Z,rdays aft~t{h~/ had oe~n.·detained. 47 In G. Campbell v.
Jamaica, it also held thaJ4hti!~ier of 45
~,
.
_
,~;:,.:::t~;1}~\::.
t
~;~~{~ more do.~~.,µ6t meet the requirements
:3f;/'
/. •,;;:.
"i.
of Article 9(2) 48 of the IECPR 't,:,;;:;;,,
c1tv
1 .,
'1>
.
1 1
., i Y :, ,: .'. ::~-. • ' ;01 J::r:i:/
I •, ,.,;efa1:1:if
136.
Therefore; ;having regard toi;j:Jt~"factis pre~~fited, the position of the law and
~·,; '
,;;,~:1,.:::,fp;:-,_
:.;,
•
•
jurisprudence, W~ fact that the Respori'lf~ptS,!ftte is also a party to the ICCPR, and the
absence of any c~~tt:ary facts or evid'~nce ~:r6~ the Respondent State, the Commission
is s9J~sfied that a ·de_lay, CJf 76 days iqj.~nreasonable and thereby finds that the Second
\:r·::''.!{:>'.:;,-.
··~;:~/-' '~~·-\·.,'".~.
~-· (_~)I
Corri~!a:t~~lj}(s right fo:1o;¢,pf9m,ptly infor,med of the reasons of her arrest and the
\/\ •._,:,:t;.fli)<t!:~.~;.,~,
··- ::,_.:.>- ,t...
•
charges]eve1Te&j:~gqi11st her has been violated.
\ :;\;,,<;J}t:-;/ e:,,.:;, ::,}};;:::!,},:/.
.
~:,_•.:.{
·,,
"'·
\ ''/
Undue delay, in the trial
\;'\
\t)i'J
137.
The Se2'6nd Complainant alleges th~t she was arrested on 21 June 2011 but·her
first appearance in court was in September 2011 and the whole trial including the
"'-
~l>c~ ~NID Pco.-L ~·
'<''l)~i,.~\AT •
~;r.
,
··O~~~
~
·~ C,
~0 "
ACHPR, Communication 224/98 Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria, para 43
. S /i
/'::. -~
'{!. \
47
Communication No. 597/1994, P. Grant v. Jamaica (Views adop~ed on 22 March 1996), in/ID~ doo. G ~~,/51/t4~(vo
II), p. 212, para. 8.1.
,
• f,
\ • 4 ~.,__ ~ ff]
48 Communication No. 248/1987, G. Campbell v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 30 March 1992);, ~46, ~ara.6.3~·
!!J ~
46
·J.
37 I P a g e
A7'.i~nfih'~
Un;oi,tJ1i
•
'
•
((;
;:;;
'. ,}. C'o
~ ,,q;
The African Commis_ 19n on1f';Jum·an a!).«;l,'l=ieqpl '
'~ <>-.,,I>- '~SION r,..r
(RJ ts
31 Bijilo Annex Lay L1t,~mb0~0'1stri~t,
Wes :;oa-st=Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@)africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.inUO O 111
f-CHP~
AC
H
PR
~lM!~J
l:i19t~~
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rinhts
~.xrrttrv:'
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
appeal ended in January 2013; lasting approximately 17 months. Therefore, her right
to be promptly brought before a court of law and be tried without undue delay were
violated
138.
The Commission notes that the right to be tried within a reasonable time is
fundamental because the right to liberty of a person has been curtailed and any such
curtailment must not contfoue for an um:easonable period of time. Thus, such a person
shall within the shortest possible time be able to know his fate in-accordance with law
and due process and be given the opportuniJ to c:n~Jenge
it a~':guaranteed
in Article
·,:,
' ;
•,'
In this regard, th~,:,~.gl11Iriisskn:1/~tc1te:d in.. the 1µanda
. _ ,~-+~SJ\.·'tf":.'-'/;~,
"'···. -... < "'-~ - .·- .,
-. ·: .... ,_. ,
Guidelines that" All persons shall have the,.,rfght to 'ir:fqi.r:··trial, zvi_thi~ a reasonable time, in
7 (1) (d) of the Charter.
accordance with international law anq,rs1~;;~~1~#s,, inclJ~i~g the ;iin~iples. ,set out in the
African Commission on Human and.Peoples' Rikf1iitf,f~£d~lines. on the Right to a Fair Trial
• - • ·,
-·:. <<;-,
I
and Legal Assistance in Africc<~ reiteratirig'tµe right (ci(~)air trial within a reasonable
.•, .,
",:i-:td
·\:. •.;- ·.
.•
time. In the Principles arJ.d:ci,~~d_elines Ol},tliJtgight to ~-F~{tifial and Legal Assistance
·;:\
---1.:
,,~%:,
1:·l:,~r-._
_~_::···
,(1//
in Africa, the Corru:_r,tisst~ri has'afsp,~xpounq.ed :on.·t}:lis):<ight which must be accorded
.• ...:~--
•--,t:~.:,~:·.
··,, '•
/
•
~/
to the person a,rrested ancf''detairied .s9 as/to intiralia prevent the violation of the
.
·,.
I
detainee's fund~m.ental rights. 49 This fuf).c.famental right is equally guaranteed under
•-,., ';,
the Ethiopian Cd11.stitution. 50
" .':,:t:,
I'
' \ ·;, .. ,
l
,?'(
,.
• I
139.
. The Cormnis~i:gn_also notes ~fiat these allegations have not been contested by
~?:/:~\:•· .,_
,,/·?)
the Respondent State s1n:c~Jt::cl..t<:l'pdt submit its, observations on the merits of the case.
.
- ·: '
\
~
"'-!,:,:.;
'
• .
• t·,,1~ '~.'..4~;,;1>'·
Howev~r, the-Cortunission has not only relied on th~t but also perused the records
and evidepce· provided_. !n her signed statement, the Second Complainant stated that
upon her ai'.~est on 21 June 2011, she was kept in solitary confinement in Maekelawi
Detention Ce1;tr~;for 13 days and was interrogated for very long hours. Thereafter,
she was mov~d to a cell with female 30 prisoners within the Maekelawi Detention
her detention
~was,,,.1:>1:&l:~g;:e~for
Centre. She also sub1nitted that • on 11 July 2011,
•
.
~~!l~N AN,5'p~
.
.
'
- ~~ -~p,.RIA!l"
.
~~f~
another 28 days by the Ethiopian Feder~l First Instant Court wJi6ls~-tne a thonf~ .
~c{i'C:)
I
•.
.,~
' ~
~--:
••
'o
Cl
.a:
'\ ')
-
(/)
·~
~::::\
t~·
49 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa- Provisi0Rs Applica~ ArrestfE
and Detention, para 3 (a) and (b)
50 Articles 19 (3) and 20(1)
•
•
. :i c \
p,~»...,.../l /jJ
0
\ ~~ 1,,1,,~~~<> §...,
• . .,.1,.
38 JP age
'lsstoN ,A°,:1i\G~
c
<F
The African Commission li :,!;!urp~J),_a.!1.9 geop(e f.
~:Rigfits
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Korn
offifoistrict,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr,au.inUO O a
o
-1
lr~,ACHPR
l.
'\;:~rc;tx:;it , ,.
i
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
continued their investigations against her. That she was only brought befor~ a court
of law on 5 September 2011 for a "charging hearing" and was ordered to remain in
custody; and on 8 September 2011, she was transferred to Kality Prison. She also
submitted that the trial proper lasted 4 months because it commenced in September
2011 and she was convicted on 19 January 2012.
140.
From the facts above, it is clear that the Second Respondent was not promptly
I
" -·- :. ,_
brought before a judicial officer/ court of la, after h-~~\~r:i'est~~ct~etention on 21 June
2011. It is also clear from the facts that the 9elay wa(r,9-! as a r~splt of the actions of
I
- ' ',·-c,
' -. I
the Second Complainant and there is no co,MB:~1~::.~:~,ideh~~i?~;r.~?_?rd d~r:1:~n~:tJating
why it took the Respo~dent State 76 d.~:~l~i:~~;~~i~g~~t~e~ore_,~'!udiciaf officef/ court
of law contrary to Article 19(4) of the Const!i~!!on ot:i~th10p1a. In, the absence of any
justification for the delay in cp~~ncingf ~Ng~i;t,~1c~F"by the Stat~>Respondent, the
1
Commission finds that the p.0tion oi'''t~iaj.>~ithi~ i'~~~9:~onable time" as provided in
.,.<,;-. ~-
'':.:,\:i'j:f:~:~.
'·-~:i:;_/{,.~_:)~-,.
i,_
(/(~-
'
Article 7(1) (d) of the ~hart~'f_,'::~s viola!f9',\r~~lfindingi~:;rfiade notwithstanding the
,"\...
<•:•r_
"-.
.-
,·.,,.,
.
.l/
fact that, the trial !.~~;t,.g~}{.~r 4 m~n,t~s>after/its·'cq:mrµ~ricement because the violation
occurred from tJi~ time sh~\was a~re~tecl add kegt.iri detention till September 5 when
•
:;;i?:~
~,\-'--. >>. I
t/
she made her rr\~i,den appearance.
-~{(}{}:,_,.,
\r:}!-.
r~
I..
~i,,,'.JT\,:.
i.·,:..,·.-:'·,
,_
•. _
;<1
Right to legal re~i;;iptation violatJ~
/
1
',~f:i.i,~i>•. . '•" ::t'iit!;'.1,:f)l"
141.
~ticl'e,i.(~t(S}}:,f the Charter provides that every individual shall have the right to
'\\
0
, ~r,::·; -l·::; :;:;~::;:;::).~;,:it~; . .;'\:;,:;.
defense, in¢ly4ing the"i"z"gfjftb be defended by counsel of his choice. The Luanda Guidelines
also reiten1?~? the obli;~tion of the State to ensure that the arrested person have the
', •; ~
'
right of acces~);~ithout delay, to a lawyer of his or her choice, or if the person cannot
.iJ;->
1
i
afford a lawyer, to a lawyer or other legal service provider, provided by state or non-
39 IP age
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
thereafter throughout the criminal justice process. 51 A similar protection is also
provided under Article 20 (5) of the Ethiopian Constitution.
The Second Complainant alleges that she was denied access to legal counsel
142.
during the first three months of her detention before she was charged with an offence,
and during this time, she was subjected to many interrogations over a long period of
time. She also had no legal representation during the "charging hearing" because her
lawyers were not given notice of the hearing/ date apcfii.:ll~~§:[lOt allowed to hold
!
/''{
\;,,;.\
private meetings with her lawyers or discus~ cei;ta'iii;:o,~,tails a'$pµt her case because
•
i
~--.-:~' :· ".:;i~.,
,::? -~
the meetings were always held in the presenfe ot. a_ secU~ff~--~a.,rfwlloJ:Y:~m!s!, listen
to their discussions. She was also deniecJthe/rigRt·t~ c_all J~J~q(er;~{fue;;~; in her
,· ·'·, ·••/
• •C
'<a,
•',
defence. In supporting her arguIT!eht,•:fh,ei.),econd} Compl~i~~nt.,Jelied on the
.t-G-:
Commission's jurisprudence in
r,, .. ·:-.:\_
/:•,.,
....... _
~y"'
4v8t~}~rf~ns [ir6~:tie1~-~-(on behalfof Gaitan Bwampamye)
v. Burundi; Media Rights Age11,_da v. Nigtfriq/f:!.nli Egyptiqn-ir1Hiative for Personal Rights and
.
Intenghts v. Egypt.
•.
' ' ';_ ,
. ,f/ i'.:,{,n'',
•.. , :-,
'I
143.
'"·itt;~t,:, •
. <··:;:'/,_
\t)? ·~
•• .
I -. r~\:;,_·;.:. .
,.-.{~;/
,
The Commissi_on I1<?tes "tli,ft~th;e!fight ofi1Jfi~.!£tsted person to have access to a
'
·- '
~\.- ., :
·"·
I
": ,' .. - _" ,,
lawyer and legal'~ervices without deftt}s qne of t~e'fundamental guarantees applied
, "'
.
'·~:.. ,• ; ' ·•,.,
I
••
in procedural l~w especially in ma~teis':t~l@~ng to deprivation of liberty. This is to
ensure that therejs ~quality of arms ;--~nd tfii:~· arrested person also has the opportunity
to b_~ ..tj.efended ap~rppri~tely and ad~quately. In this Communication, the Respondent
'• ~ ' ·-.. •
•.
• ~
, , ,,. . 'ir
Stat~\ l;l.8:s·':11<;>.! challengec(the _yeracity of the allegations made by the Second
·, :
-. ~-., .... ,,-!·;;..
.
•
••
Compfa)n~t:'·)~: :.the__ absence of any counter evidence, the Commission would
t~;~ itsi,'~~jsi6n in Avocats Sans Frontieres (on behalfofGae"tan Bwampamye)
1
therefor: f~i\~
•
·V
·1
/:-··
v. Burundi,'' \fhere it underlined the importance of equality of arms in criminal
\".
proceedings52 , ap.d holds that the Second Complainant should have been allowed
access to a lawyer without delay including during the initial and various
interrogations held by the State agents whilst in detention and the" charging hearing".
~P,MANOp_ ~
~ ~ i~RIAT ~O.c>
0 ~~
~'
,
'
11i?~v ~
•
IS'.
51 Luanda ?u~delines - Ri~hts ~fan arres~ed p_erson, para 4(d) ~nd Access to legal services, par1~~{a:) ~) pa~~ (i)~(ii).~ \
1
See als~ Pnnc1ples and_ Gu1delmes to a Fair Tnal and Legal )}Ss1stance, G- Access to lawyers an,ii.legal Sen(lee~}'P,d H}~ ~ ~
1
Legal aid and legal assIStance.
,
,~1-,
~~/ o
'
52 Communication No. 231/99 (6 November 2000), para. 27.,
\ 1 _c,
!'-\}•\}!\--/ .c,,f§ (I)
'
••
40 I p a g e
''"'"""
Afrii:;an((,t,~D
Union ._,111,
••
• •
••
••
• • •
••
•
1.
I
•
\ ~ '(:)~
,/ 0"-i IJj .
The African Commission ;-.in Human°and,Pe3plesff •
.,,
v~10N ,'\l:.(~Riglj~ .
'<
3·1 Bijilo Annex Layout~on'lboJ~or!_h!lilfstri ,
West CoasrR.e,.;/;.,o:G°ilfnbia
"'"'
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220)°441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr,au.int/0 0 r.a
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Failing to do so, the Respondent State had deprived the Second Complainant of the
opportunity to challenge the legality of her long detention and also to respond
effectively to questions posed by investigators during the investigation and the
prosecutor during the "charging hearing". The Commission also agrees with the
Second Complainant's articulation of its jurisprudence in Media Rights Agenda v.
I
Nigeria where it held that a detainee held for /49 days without access to a lawyer was
:
'',
·-:--·: ~~......__
a violation of Article 7(1) (c) 53 and Egyptian In;'itiative for,ferson_afRfghts and Interights v.
I
:
. ._
.
Egypt where it held that the absence of lawykrs
£qr th~·accused\persons
at the critical
I
, .•.
'
,
I
I
.
4
•
early interrogation stage was a violation of,,1J;~~~1~l[~) (t}~ ._o~th~ -~h~~-ter: . . ,
144.
In light of the above, the Co~~~ion fih1s/;Jhat thE? ·s,~cond Complainant
_.{;·:i:·: {..-t'\1.
'·/",: ..,.\
··,
•.........
having been denied access to a lawrei'frcihffh~tim~{Bf her arrest,_on2,1 June 2011 to
_, .,
J
•• ..:,, :,i, .<·.;,
~; ·/
the time of the preliminary hearing..~ri'?,Sep'ten1b,~q1011 without arwJustification; and
'
'V'
•.
·-;~•)}':/;);\
thereafter, in cases where sl},lfhad acces:s,,tq lawyerst;~;y:q_s not allowed to hold private
.• .\ ;,';~,
'<._"'"·~+;~ -.,,
·<;/t~- '.~':: .•., ¥/:>
meetings with them is a yiol,afiq_n of Artklft(J) (c) of th'.~%S:Jharter.
,e,,,c~';,,,"', ,,
't<<. ,I • c.,
,/
Right to presum,ption of innocence,yioJated
/
145.
.,
'\
The Seco¼d:-'\omplainant als'q all~ge·s that the Respondent State violated her
right._to be presu~eq.ji:n.pocent, in thJt the Ethiopian authorities conducted a negative
,,·.··· .... _
•. .--.:.~·.·>//'i\,h..
~.'.':~0;/
publi<:ity ''campaign agai~1.~t:l}e1t:aimed at prejudicing the outcome of her trial.
\_
''..,,
'
'v:;.L·/.':,.:'.;,t,.,,
•
Governwenf ·(:)ffidals inc~udjng the Prime Minister made public statements to the
\'
/.
,..
.
....
Parliame~tgri~n~ ded~rittg' her and others guilt prior to the end of the trial and a
: _.,•
•.'
\ t
·.
documentary called 'Akeldama' was shown on national television accusing the Second
Complainanta~·terrorist. It is also alleged that during the trial the prosecution failed
entirely in discharging the burden of p~oving her guilt, instead, she was expected to
53 Communication No. 224/98 (6 November 2000), para 55
54 Communication No. 334/06 (1 March 2011), para. 133.
41 IP age
p..CHPJi
1rj~:i\,
ACH PR
~\_~~!)}
"~x.u.r.i:tV-::
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
v Ethiopia,ss Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan56 and lvI.edia Rights Agenda v. Nigeria57
to support her arguments.
146.
Article 7(1) (b) of the Charter provides that "ez1en1 individual shall have the right
to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal". The
presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court of law is a basic
principle under criminal-law and international human rights law which requires that
-
•
the accused person/ defendant is given the benefit ·9£- the:dc.mbt both before and
·~, ~
J:' .,·
,'
during the trial as well as outside and withir:i:.':t4~···trial, tlnti,I guilt or criminal
'
'·.
/ -/
responsibility is fully established by the cou!t,J~,!~e Prjndpli~L~li.d·G~!9eli~~s to a
"'·,. ~ ., '
,:-(~(rj~:.-::~t--::'..'lt\1~;;;.:,
-- ·- ~ •. '
Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa,J~et Com'~i~s,,ion exp~-u,nded
, r;(~) ;·;,;: i~\-
'\.,,.·:,:· . :\
'; • •
• " _../
on the'right of
an accused person to be presumed innoce:ht{uh~il prd$~¢n guilty by a competent court
• ••
/'/I
·--·.•·/:.i_:~'.~·.;:
I
,
.•
of law and stated that public offj~iaif?:s);iall mairtf~iJ,,Jtthe presumption of innocence of
•
.
. '
.
,.;,..
•
'' !
~
the accused person. They:,'.~re allow~'d. to iJB§m, the public about criminal
• ,_. :,:
' .. ::·· '.· •.
•
··-.;~,
•• f'-;\"
.,:.
•
investigations or charges; h1.1-t'~hall not expf~ss,a view ~s.i'9-)the guilt of any suspect.58
., ~ ·:·: ,.·
' . '.f,:.~
' ,\( ~ . '• • •
.,:':. ./
The UN Human Rtghts Comniitj:ee,also expres~eq.,g_.~ifnilar position by stating that
• ,;
. •'
•' ~ •
,~
~
', •
'
•
•Y•'
: ''•-•,.-'
this obligation re'quires ali"public ciufho:rities to r~fr~in from prejudging the outcome
,'
of the trial.59
•
~>
V
•
•
147.
,>
.... ,,·
'
'
.
y.,
,·-
The Comrµiss_ion notes that the Re~pondent State had not responded to these
:,
allegations by chall~nging or otherwise its veracity. In the absence of such counter
evid~~¢e/it:w.i.11 mak~ a·fihcl,ii)g;based on the facts before it. The Commission agrees
with t*~\2;~ff,~4}f1I1,t that ~h~ presumption of innocence requires the state not to
engage ~~·:an,{{;~~~tlve: ~Jblicity or statement or documentary against her with the
objective of:r,rejudging the triql and determining her guilt before it ended. This has
'',
";.
been clearly e~:g:ndated by the Commission in Haregewoin Gebre-Sellaise & IHRDA (on
behalf offorme;'°Dergue officials) v Ethiopia, and Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman v. Sudan and
55 Communication No. 301/05 (7 November 2011).
56 Communication No. 222/98-229/99 (3 May 2003), para.,54
57 Communication No. 224/98 (6 November 2009), para. 48
42 Ip cl g C
.'~~'f.~
,t\fric,an(t;);\
Urnon 1;;,£;
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Therefore, the negative publicity campaign
conducted against her by the Government officials including the Prime Minister's
public statements declaring her and others guilty prior to the end of the trial and the
'Akeldama' documentary shown on national television accusing the Second
Complainant as terrorist aimed at prejudicing the outcome of her trial offends the
principle of presumption of innocence and is a violation of Article 7(1) (b).
,,,,,.,,.....
148.
The Second Complainant also alleges that s!}g:~'.was:iitf\rged with violating
•
.
\(;{;'?).
A~)(l
Articles 32(1) (a)6°, 38(1) 61 and 684 (1) and (2) 62 qfftl\~;\~~~i_opiaj\triminal Code and
"c-· ·. , ,_,_
l ,_;
Articles 4, 7 and 9 of the 2009 Anti-TerrorismJ~r.oclamatiq:it::bJ:1fh<i>n~:of.Jhe ev_i,dence
:, ·:·;,·: ,~\·,: <~t._·,_ \\·'. ,_ :~:\;/Jt -~:,,~·;:,:;:¥_:_ \:~-;.-:.<;~~,)?~;::/'·
showed that she was involved in an off~ride. Insfec1).:t)~he wa;.};J~equired"tc:f·prove her
,:.:((~ L'"\._
''-·-ltftt·\,_ ~
~-'.{ • '\
innocence and also in the process WcJ.,~ 'derii~9- lli.e rigJ;t\to bring exper.t,,y.Vitnesses. The
./( i
'\ ~;: :\,
'\'. < ;.,/
./ ""
Commission reiterates that th~:·:JRi~~pmption-.t:Pf[innocence alsgi "ineans that the
,
,,/
-,~~\:\Ji;,\1 1.
~~\\' -~' >,
prosecution has a legal obli,gation to P.1:9"'~ the guilt ~f the accused person beyond
/:()\
\l\.;_t~~\-.~,
', ·. ' ' ,: .
reasonable doubt and nof.f@r;the acc~~~el/t,);i~l.'.pon to p;roye his/her innocence. The
•..
<i~lv
'-,'.:~;,{_f~-~~\...,
·;{J;:_:.~~l--
.-'.,
,4
Commission notes tfyattl].e judgm.~r)f·of the Fe~q~rnJ1;High Court found the Second
· . ., .. -~
• · -. ,·;...
'·•,'.._:(;''~
'~?r·{k:t.,,~
Complainant guilty of aidirig per;8H,~}t9.r the purp6se of a terrorist act, supplying of
•,
)':'!',
L
0
>"'\,,
. >''.
<
information helpful to the terrorism acf<i#;·cqyert operations and sentenced her to 14
\ ••
'
' },,:,}:~:•·
'
•
years imprisonmerit. The Commissioµ al~o· notes that the basis of the conviction and
'~ '
•
,· (
'
sent~:nce was not ade9-uat~ly substa~tiated in the reasoning of the Court. The evidence
relied{J~on:in_ the jud'gni~~tw-eteith~ statements of witness's No. 6 and 7 who testified
'\)\ '·-.,.,.,..:~·--., ~!: :~? •,
'', "' "''
being observer~:\Wh,ep. files in the email account of the Second Complainant were
\ :,,
..'_·_· ;;,,·,, .. ·.}r'':: : .... ·.·,,\."'
opened arid-~printed byJhe investigator, and the Second Complainant borrowing a
..:~·.,
\_ ....,,.,,
digital carri~j~ from her at different -times respectively. It made a finding that the
'! ' . ~
Second CompJ~jhant had established a worki:JJ.g relationship with the 1st defendant
3~·~·
.
and was forwarding inciting and instigative information and reports th t the latter
," ,,...utM~.w ANO p~
~ ~"(F>-RIAT . O,c,<'.
~o v~ ____.._
~IS', 0 ~
~
, ~ ~
-·
~ 'o
/.,~
<-::-~
0-s,
l}ishe as( &21~if: (a) he~ ii\
actually commits the crime either directly or indirectly, in particular by means of an animallbi;-a nabral fufce 0r- ) ls
61 "Where two or more persons enter into an agreement to commit a crime the provisions re~tdirf.&\P.articip}itio9,azyi §
aggravation of punishment due to the above-mentioned circumstances are applicable (Art. 8~;l11d))"~__.....-i,.\~'v ~ •
62 money laundering and aiding under the provision of Article 684 of the Criminal Code
.~
•Q~ _;,,~~ (§:.'?~':,,j
60 "Any person shall be regarded as having committed a crime as a principal criminal and TI
·,.,.t l-lo,,t,~,£ €'_,~
431 Page
The African Commission on HUmao:ancl·Peoples'
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombe North District.
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04·
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.in!/0 0 a
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
posted ori his website despite evidence confirming that the Second Complainant was
working within the context of her profession. as a journalist. 63
149.
The Commission therefore agrees with the facts as stated by the Second
Complainant, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the wide
negative publicity regarding her guilt prior to the end of the trial, and the fact that
. .
I
upon appeal, she was acquitted of two (2) 0ut of the three (3) counts brought against
I
/ . ·,::/---._
her and receiv~d a reduction of sentenc from 14 to.,,Sye~!s\~d thereby finds a
1
•
I
•
'·
•
··.'
'
violation of Article 7(1) (b) of the Charter. /
'
.
!/'.;;! ::!'((}::;_
Not tried by a competent and independ~rj,f court'</ ,
. l'af\;;!f,\;t\.
>.:::}
.,
The Second Complainant_i:ill~ges that·,.*~trigJ{to be tried ~y an independent
150.
0
and competent trib~nal wa_s· also vi6lf1i~d. Sh~ ~t1$'.q;:1i:eferenced the Commission's
,:-:':~~-
1<",·::-,
--...".. :/{;~"}-
jurisprudence64 to suppqrt-Her submissioris:'.J,;.. .
,.
151.
':::-,<,\.~....
~/;'
'.,,'
'\·.
.-t·
·:;'.IViiii'-:•·
!{;J,
The trial by",a)~p:ippettri_t\md·i~depehd~'nt. c.9li:rt/ tribunal is fundamental
because firstly, it'~~ek~ ~:~aran~~~-~~~-right of th~ individual to have his/her dispute
'J
'•· . •
<
decided or res~Jy1ed by a neutral body·q{aµthority. Secondly, it also guarantees the
Ir:•;.~,
f,
\_:.; •:";':-'
rule of law and s~P.<¥·ation of power~\" Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter provides for the
• ;:,: ··~<
: :·;
triaJby an impartia.!1:_ii9~rt or tribuiJL It did not specifically state that that the trial
sho~ld .be by a com;~1:~htf;:iade"p:~i'ldent and impartial court as provided in Article
•
•
.
.•
•
•
"l>.:.1;.
. ~· '
" ••• "
14(1) of the ICCJ?R.-.-:tfowever, the Commission in providing interpretative guidance
.,
, •• _,,..
r
"·..
.·,.
on Article ;7 read with/hide 26 has through its Principles and Guidelines on the
·, .::
Right to a Ea,!r Trial a~d Legal Assistance in Africa obligated States _to ensure that
judicial bodies ~hall be established by law to have adjudicative functions to determine
matters within their competence on the basis of the rule of law and in accordance with
proceedings conducted in the prescribed manner and all judicial bodies shall be
independent from the executive branch and shall base their decisions oi::i'~~ ;, e
•
"$Y' ~~,-RIAT
.
, ~0 v~ _,_,,,_.,.,.
, JJ~~
--•·.
,
'
,
<1.(!
I
44 I P a g e
'"'·'""
African{€;';1'
Union,1&.
c.)
Oi,
~\S'.
~
~ ~
0-,:,
~~
~~d
'f!. -1
-~.,'.. ?
U>
\)•~' 1 ~ "'
ff
/..:
/l
g
, •
,~
Communication No. 281/03 -Wetsh'okonda Koso and others v. Democratic Republic of Congo, parS~-Z~- \
63 See Annex 14B of the Complaint, page 11
64
~o..<' • ·
~...
~
--~✓
A-(,'
~
¼
:,../
The African Commissio on Hum,an,and.Peo(iles:§
•. "'t,.,
• .:;Siew A>-1ti<:R)g1Jfs'
31 Biji!o Annex Layoi:rt,~m.b,9r~9Jt!1@.1sfr~
,
West c'oa-st-R~e1g<1·1·o•c-.n.Ga.,..m·6·1a
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax:.(22b)'i41 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.inUO O 113
.
I
/;v~CHP~·~
i
I
AC H p R
I
\l \
)jJ Afncan
• Comm1ss1on
• • on
\':~~S:X;ty
""Z:ic:J:tn.r.11£;>';,
_11
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
I
evidence, arguments and facts presented bef~re it. lt also provides that judicial officers
shall decide matters before them without any restrictions, improper influence,
inducements, pressure, threats or interferen~e, direct or indirect, from any quarter or
I
for any reason and the process for appointments to judicial bodies shall be transparent
and accountable and the establishment of ~n independent body for this purpose is
encouraged. Any method of judicial selecti!on shall safeguard the independence and
impartiality of the judiciary. 65 Similarly, th~ jurispru~,el)~~ cif,the\S:ommission and the
I
. ·/
"
•
Human Rights Committee. have also recognized;:tllg.t''the rig~t to have once cause
I
',, ·•"
' •'..
heard by an independent an impartial court i_~_.t:lp!?q!ute ·and'"\Y,i~l}otit excepHon,~t6
l,d(:.:::',;,::,:~'-.
'." .,<,
•• •.. ' ·.:.·
152.
The Second Complainant argued,✓,!h~t the. trJat\was no.Cclpne by ·a competent
I
',
.'-..,
't. · \
.~1r:~L.,?.:ti.
·.-. . .
·. ,
and independent court because the _$d;~r~~:nt int~~~~red in th~ judicial process in
,.,.;.~}{
I
-~,s{~,\-~
/·,/
'._
,
terms of the negative publicity ~gai1~r~1r wllicijj~·~?ws a real or perceived problem
with the independence of th~:rcourt. s¥&q'~4iy, th~t't~~ . Rrosecution failed to prove its
':•::(:;;:~>k
,'.'~(:<'.:,'
••,. '•• •.,= ~:•
•'-u
,_,tv>
case and the court shiftecl)th.~ burdel)J>n;:if,tpe Second ::¢omplainant to prove her
·:)•.
"."'.•<.
.?'
,'!,";,::-.
,•
;
"
innocence which arpourtts to ~''t;\,~:1:,9'i~;·egara"~~f':~i~meii'tary criminal procedure and
,' '
••• ''
'•--;<,~.:~;
"\f.:•:i•'•
):.I,,
thereby exposes ,the incompetence·1qf't~e court ift·'addition to other fair trial rights
.' '.
•
'\(_'.-:_J;_,~\,
,i
violations. Thirdly, that the fair trial issu'~~:1w~:re not addressed by the appellate court.
':,
153.
,•.
\'.'/;)_>V'
In the abs~Qce of any cotinter}~vidence and/ or submissions from the
·'(
Resp~~dent State, the Commission would like to examine whether the trial court was
comp~tefit:ang. indepe.ndertJ;Jh,e cdmpetence of a court or tribunal is the authority or
'< \ ",;_ -~:::-, · ,:··1+>.
.. .... ,.· .,,•• ,.
•
power \;,t thJ<'s9ytt-:-Q! tribunal to exert jurisdiction over a person or thing or to
\'.\
.--:t£L,/ --.......,,.<r·~i\:;:r:·:·-=:)
determine':>ca:·ses
or suits/The
Commission notes that this matter was brought before
\. ~.!</
_J,,,i1/
the FederaL~igh Cou;t of Ethiopia which has jurisdiction over such matters. 67 The
Second Compiafnant did not also r_aise any objection to the Court's jurisdiction. In the
/.;:'"'
absence of such objection, the Commission shall take notice of the fact that the court
is competent to adjudicate such matters as provided in~the~?~Courts
:t\'\_-(~RIAT
Proclamation.
,. "'~v
0 ~-"~ ..---...
/t
,~
,,,--··
~
~O,o
<'~n
.,.,
~ ~
0
~
\
(J;.;
~
t ~·,
65 Para A- General principles applicable to all proceeding, 4(g)(h) and 5.
: ~
• .,\ ~" J
C/l
66 See UN HRC General Comment No. 32, para 19, ACHPR Communication 322/06, Tsatsu \f~jka,!~ \,._Ghan~, pa1a ;J,46:t'
67 See Article 12 of the Federal Courts Proclamation No. 25/1996
.:,.;\::il-,.i.. ·~:«s'-~~~'<.? .§" .
,
•
Sio;,: ..\•',l\Ct<f:-
j
·s·
4
Ip
. . .. . .
age
~""'""
AUfri<r3n6,71~
n,on~.:I'
..
. . . .. . . ...... . ..
. ....
.. .
. - . .....
The African Commission•on t!Mffi.f~E~r-~op es'
'-..~~ights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Koiiibo"Kiorth District,
West Coast Region Gambia
(
(
Phone: 220) 230 4361 Fax: 220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
l1ttps:/achpr.au.inVO O a
ACHPR
I
I
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
154.
,
.
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
.
The next question is whether the Federal High Court was independent and
impartial in adjudicating the case brought against the Second Respondent. For a court
to be considered independent, the adjudicatqrs must ensure that judicial proceedings
!
are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected, and it shall be
I
impartial if it determines cases on the basis/of facts and in accordance with the law,
without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or
interferences, direct or indirect, from any /quarter o.rr:~£6ft~;yi:r;~ason. 68 The Second
.
/
./<~;,/'
\ :~; .r. :·:.
Complainant argues that the negative stateµientsJ1y(t!\~).~espm~d~nt State at the pretrial and trial period clearly demonstraiecl .tl)e._go;rtJ~Ill~nfJ:,JrostiHty ai:14" bias
t7·,:: ~ , .~~·~-~-.
' ·-.:;::=~:.::. - ~- ~ ·---~.:<· · /·~:-::~-~;./
towards the Second Complainant and q.tijer journ:alis.ts ana.Jot::reby irifluenced the
.:
/
.1,. •
,·· •...
\
.
·<.'..',
conduct of the proceedings and ?r,1ftc·o~e~~~}he ~~iision of't~t}~Jal court. The
I
f·1<~
,
,
, ,;,.
'j- ., .• ,.
. .• ,·
Commission notes that the ResB<;itig~gt S~ate hc:1~'n_ot countered t]jese allegations by
•1/
I
~,~;)('.;_~~\.,
·,~<,:', ~.:1'
•
submitting its written obsery:ations, irt'\t;h¢ absence'oH,~ch, and having regard to the
_( ·/,
"<L\:~:> , .. ~ --. ___ facts and evidence est~bHsh~l,;~.~d cir~-~;rst~~~~.s of tn'E\~ise, the Commission agrees
. -..
, ;). .;._ i:•:.···-
/
~-t•.! .,.; - .l..
•~:.:";L/:t. \.
·.,
~•·i ?i 1J
<..
with the view of ,the·Sec,,ond ·@\~JJ:11?Jain<;1nt m'<thc1t1,_g1e negative pre-trial campaign
.,.,
' {(,:i':f~----~ I
't~,:?}lJ:?y
•
particularly the• statement of the 'Rrirne Minist~,iv to Parliament and the Akeldama
documentary atre_d on television had 01.<~Q:t;!l<;l>have influenced the proceedings and
its outcome to 'tre .detriment of th<:! Sr~6nd Complainant. For these reasons, the
CoIIllllission find~'thcitthe Second ¢~m'.plainant though tried by a competent Court
the l~\~;(~9:s ;~ot ind;p'end.~#trf¼f:i~iinp~rtial in the conduct of its proceedings thereby
'\'\ · · .:. .;_'.--~_. .tr~·,. . ._
. . , ,,,
violating_Artidf't.X1}.(d) of the Charter.
,:,;·;;;::"'• v,. ·-~:•:". .-:(~;v•:'.1:','.)C'.:1-,
\i"\
..
·,,,
Right to exa~ine a witness violated
\'.\.
155.
The Se~~~d Complainant also ~lleges that her right to examine a witness was
violated because the trial Court denied her the right to call two expert wi esses who
•
ANO
•
would have provided expert opinion regarding whether her alc.t1¾l.tiiti:amd'Jfi • to
~ a
~o~~~"' ',s-11
,--<···
-i~•
o<,;
r
-4.
L:N ~asic Principl~s on the ln~epe~tlence of the Jud_icia~ (~985), _principles 2 and 6. _Se~ alffiGem~jal ~ifples fil}~ er,
Gmdelines on the Rights to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistan~e m Afma- (A) General Prmciple~ bPPlfo:able to ~k,Eeg~l~ /0
Proceedings, paras 4 and 5
t\~- <&\.. ~\l-- J rv/!j ,§....,
,
:-~v, '~1;, .....___./~~ ,.,«;
68
46 I P a OO c
'"'"'""
AfriG<Jn(,~)
Urnon~>-'
The African Commissiq~'"'onH(fma~ andrPeoples'
"
s;:
v, ~
, """,· h's
l '!,<or,, ...~\:,~ ~
l
31 Bijilo Annex"Layollt,:~pii:ib.o_!Slortb::El1strict,
West Coasr'R·rgion Gambia .
Phone: (220)· 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
I
l_ .. ,..,.,
I'
I
;(-"~; AC Hp R
~ ~
I
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
'"-: . .
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
..
journalistic work or otherwise and did not provide any reason for the denial. She also
submits that the Federal Supreme Court failed to recognise the relevance of the expert
'
evidence on appeal and instead speculated on the ability of the said witnesses to refute
prosecution evidence and concluded that th~ Sec.ond Complainant's activities did not
amount to journalistic work. In support of h~r submissions, she cited the decisions of
the European Court of Human Rights 69 in th~s regard.
I
156.
. ,· .. :·.'.:·,,>·:;
The right to examine a witness is proyided for,Jn,ArtieJ~-?{1) (c) of the Charter
which g~arantees the right to a ,defence. Thi~ provisio:njsdesigne<l to guarantee to the
I
,... >
",. : '-: •• .
right to an effective defence, as well as pnbx·
• ,,.,$ ""the"i~cused-_with-the
_sam}~ legal
1.-;,;
", .. ., ,'
··.,'
........... ,.
powers of compelling the attendance . /·;(;:J
J~§~$\ andv-~f\·exa~i;_.;_ing:,,of cross-
'l:~:1i;~?1
._, ~-:',. >\"
examining any witnesses as are av_§ti111tble •i~)t:r.e prq'.§,~Cution. InJ_ts. :P,rinciples and
•
J;?,:.;,f
'
Guidelines on Fair Trial and LegalAssistah~·~:;i~l~'i~a, the Commissions states that
-. : ~ :_. .-
·"L;;·,,.._:?_,_
I
the accused has a right to exaptine, or hav.l'.e/amined,'>ifJtntsses against him or her and to
'<~J~~l~~.:;,.• ._.J:
obtain the attendance an4:.exq.1rzi11ation of:c~it]JCS,§eS on hi~⇒-~r>her behalf under the same
•
-·--" •
--
'~--~;~-
t-
'..
conditions as witn~"J'i:~g{t{s/foi~f;ff~1w~~G.!/u,}J{nght may be limited to those
witnesses whose t jtzmony is }elevantaiJ.1~!~~lf to ass~.sf'in ascertaining the truth. 70
7
157.
Fr9m the::"a,bove, it is clear that th~.·rrtght to examine witnesses is not absolute.
This means thati]fli~ court can restric:t tll~J i~~ht in line with its national legislation.
rt
\~~:t::ttt>
., l
Ho~r,,eye~, such a re~~t~ft~~ must ~~t'1'deny/the right of the accused person to examine
a releva_~! wi~ess whos@:l~~~tP:J;~~y:1s likely to assi.st the court in ascertaining the truth
\
...
.
.
;,.,.
or has· probatfa,~ value. In the present communication, the Second Complainant
alleges that she called,: ~our witnesses at the trial to testify regarding. her being a
I
journalist B~~ she was denied the right to,call two other expert witnesses to provide
\'
expert opinioifas-to whether her activities amounted to journalistic work without any
...
reasons and th~t on appeal the decision of the lower court was upheld.
~\hfJ\Alll Alt/()
h.,,, :?:-o>l-~t,"CARIAT '°~o...
. :
, ~~ 0 ~ ' 9 , , c ,
69 European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR"), Popov v. Russia, 1Application No. 26853/
t
((Rj:J}
'
<~IS'.
,i \
JW July 2006),:,paia.18~;§ ii
ECtHR, Bocos-Cuesta v. The Netherlands, Application No. 54789 /qo (10 November 2005), pa .~2~}and Ef~tldR, Wieffebic i
v. Poland, Application No. 24541/94 (18 June 2002).
,
\· ~. ''°'-½,~ /<v-t'
/7 /
70 Para N - Provisions applicable to proceedings relating to crim,inal charges, 6 (f). See also U~.JIRC.."€~ ~~iL1.3lP9E~3
·'\
471 p cl g C
().;
':>'.,.-7
The African Commissio~1-:~1~ oples'
~......,:;;;::;;-· Rights
31 Bijiio Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.inVO O a
I
..
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
.,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
The issue is whether the denial amounts to a violation of he:r right to examine
158.
a witness. In Bulut v Austria, the European ~ou;tt on Human Rights reiterated that
'
I
the principle of equality of arms implies that; the applicant must be "afforded a
I
reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a
disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponent."71 The Secohd Complainant has confirmed that she
;
.
I
was allowed to lead evidence on four wilnes~es to show that she was a journalist but
I
not on two others who would have provided expert opinion p_fr:her journalistic work
without any reasons. There is also evidence/ on r.ec6~~'.tt O;:;;\a~peal to the Federal
Supreme Court, the latter confirmed the dec~si9;!}~(~he"tr:~~,!'.\o~f!(?~~the,..tss~-~!-Jm the
th:!;:::::ti:~
:::::::t ::vi::nc:e:::o~::;~;~!:t;::a:::::•;t!te
I
Ar
,j•
, •
'
•
•
•
.
•
transmissio_n ~f information for irft{rjlJ~~~url W1}~"~~rks for a ter~prist organizati~n.
The Comrruss10n notes that,,JJ1.e facts aSflf~~fi sta1;d 'q?:~,q.~rs on _the issue of evaluat10n
of evidence at the natiol).a:lt:~1:1rt of the i~J~g)IlCient s\Xt~\'.The decision not to allow
>
• i~;;:t1:-c:i>;V I \'f~t .
,, "
the expert eviden~e.ofthe two>,~~p~ifwiti;iess~fs,l)gpld have been made upon the
••
··,
\'.;;'.~\
I
··<.,/•,'·
assessment of t~,~ evidence before 'it,t~~1f ~ /bn i~s,r,ules of evidence. The Comm~ssion
notes that, based, on the facts qefore 1t,;:,t!1~vsnal court gave no reasons why 1t has
~':', ·.~~
,;,
'\fi1.~:rJ· •
refused the testiwony of the two e~pert/witnesses. However, the Federal Supreme
:bf the! facts before upholding the correctness of
1
Co4Ft~as made iis:,e~n,assessmen,t
\,~:,(·~--,.,.
·,....,_:
,• '"•~.
,•~,'°'.'
I
the tria:fgq1,1r.(s ruling on 'thi~:i~s,tie~The Commission further notes that it is not within
\
:,
·~.'.,, '/;:'•:. ~;~\··
•
,_,
._,c';•
its corr{pe,te~~e'.t'ci:"cl~t_~rmine whether the Federal High Court and the Federal Supreme
\f\
,,f~'.)'•'.•~ t::~-~:~::t~L:::.·:~>·.1~/.(\:-
Court had/::gr,.operly ev~}jiated the evidence before it so as to determine the relevance
or otherwi£e:,pf the te;timonies of the two experts since this is within the remit of the
~~,
'
national courtiin:'.line with its national laws .
.',/;'',I
.(,,;;Y·
159.
In light of the above, the Commission is of the view that the denial to examine
'
the two expert witnesses is not a denial of )ustice and the right to a defence within the
481 pa g C
https:/achp;.au.intiO O r.s •
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Alleged violation of Article 9
160.
Article 9 of the Charter states (1) "Even; individual shall have the right to receive
infermatinn:
•
I
•
. -· .
(2) Every individual shall have the right to express ~nd d;s~liniti,qilt}JJs opinions within the
1
law".
,/~~i~h ,,,~
1
161.
The Commission in its Declaration of/~ri17-c,iples"o1:'fttf~~;~cjtn,0JJ~_~pres~Jon in
.)- '•
j
'
• ( .•
:,.'.<.-: .<:-"
···-·•-:>.;,' ''" ,.·:"i:•· --· ,.;,,,-
Africa (the Declaration) aimed at supplem~ntirig :Article 'g;_Jf;the ·cha'tter:.provides
that freedom of expression and inf'.;tira:J:io~{)1~ludiyi!,' the ri~i\'f-tt.&1)\<, receive and
impart information and ideas, eisb~~~-~tfly, r~{~?~~ or in print, il,}-:lhe form of art, or
through any other for~:-rw°f comrll'¼~~ition, ·--{~~c~~?ing across frontiers, is a
fundamental and inali~_ria\itt,_human Efg~t:D:c}hd art -in:dispensable component of
_
·tt:;;:·t:.:;~,
,1<t}t·
i
'·<ti);ir,
~, :·.-,
democracy. 72 The Cqrrimissioif:,~!gQ_~ecognise"stJhl:l,t ~he'exercise of this right carries
with it responsi~iiiti~~,-ihich
~ : :'
t~~;~{~r~ ij gen~_ft{i,~~low for certain restrictions or
~:+YJ;:~!i.1 ,
I
·tr"'
limitations on \h,~ _right. However, an'.¼!Ii-~~F;Jctions on freedom of expression and
t
r~
._
'<,~t;4i!G.~Y
access to information must be proyideq-;111:,y law, serve a legitimate aim and is a
neoe~sary and pro.portiopate means tQ achieve the stated aim in a democratic society73 .
In C~~~:titut:jonal Righi$, P:r:oj~ct~ ,Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights
\:\•~••<://:"<.•?:~~i~:'.)~
•' "•/.:,;,, :,.
r
Agenda:\v Nige.r_i,~tAb-e. Commission opines that Freedom of expression is a basic
\}t:,!
<:':~:~: / ··-<) \,:::;·:f·;>,='.~, . . /~human 'rjg~ty· vital"";;tJgP'an individual's personal development and political
'<_ 0 ii.,;,'
_:•::;;
consciousn.~~~, and to his participation in the conduct of public affairs in his country,
and comprise~;t9e right to receive information and to express one's opinion for which
its limitatiomP~ust be strictly proportionate with and absolutely necessary for the
I
advantages, which follow and not to erode
illusory. 74
49 j pa g C
..
'
ts~~~~~ AC H PR
IJ African Commission on
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
tx:o:.t.r.SJY~
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
162.
The Commission takes note of Article 27 (2) of the Charter which establishes
certain restrictions in the exercise of the righti, ahd freedoms enshrined in the Charter.
'
However, the Commission also recognises that the right to express oneself through the
media by practicing journalism shall not be Jubject to undue legal restrictions. 75
I
163.
The Second Complainant submits thM the Respondent State has violated her
. .
I
.
right to freedom of expression as enshrined ih Article 9 of the Charter because she was
.
I
.•· ..
prosecuted, detained and convicted on ba~eless ch~f~e~ :tn~f)xere solely aimed at
I
//,':''{
\ ,.,
.··i.
•
•
punishing her for her legitimate journalistici worl_<:,':t_'.ht~" was a ~es;triction of her right
to freedom of expression which did not mJetJJ;i.~_any,:oi,th~ !2~~ditions_provi_ded in
.,J~~/:;_~::}i(~~~-r?t>,-~
•• , . ~, _ - • - - _,..' ;- -•- >
Konate v Burkina Faso because the restri,<:.t:l<l>h wJ·s'.ij,g~}provi4~d,~y law, did,rtot serve
/:ft~:~I\J'.·>:.:
'\\{?l!\
-. ~- >
a legitimate purpose and was not ne9~s'saryri~;J} demp~ratic societY:'\,.,;
t-
164.
_, \
The Respondent State di4<:n~fsub~t,.if[\:~,J2~e'f:ations on t~}:fu~rits including
1
,
'.,
I
••
>'~'-L
on this issue. In determini~g: whethe'lffli~ J~esporici'€~\-~as_ violated Article 9 of the
Charter as alleged, the Commi_~sion wo.~ld-rely on the;:£~df~ and evidence before it.
The issue for deter~ttj~tipn i~
-;/{~.:;<;:,·••m•~-,,..o.:;-.i,.,;;'.~}::,...
t}t~.tJ;i~r ;~e Ik~~Btj.d><;=.c:nJitl~inant'
s right to freedom of
,-::>/
l"~F<·-;)r~..
">
'·
expression was .':·::,)
5~stricted, if yes, wb~,,.fh~r
sµch
a i~;triction
is provided by law, serve
·0,-:t,-.
I
,,
a legitimate airri/:1~nd is a necessary and\:,tdportionate means to achieve the stated aim
in a democratic 'i~~i~ty.
,
f,
,~> ""·<·
'·: :': ',,
'''l,;)tl~l}:,,, '
,(!/;/
1
Restrid~pp,:of Freedon\ iof:;tf;;~,Bf,~'.§.si&n.
: •._
165.
,.._ -", '";-<·.,,, , :. c;·:,.<
,,.; "- ,'.;,.l,/t:r~·-'
Th~ .$,ect~~'to~pJaf~ant submits that she is an accomplished journalist who is
well knowii./or her critical stance on the policies of the Ethiopian Government and as
a result, was suJJjected to threats and attempted intimidation to make her abandoned
her journalistic work but she was undeterred. She subits that she continued her work
and publications and founded her own m'onthly magazine called Change; established
her own publishing house but it was shut down in November 2010 because her
advertising clientele were warned by some members of· the ~~~ t to
£'<'~,r;,,-.RIAT ~O"'<
/,:;; ~ (j~ ~--··
~(('IS'i
~
75 Principle 19(1)
~
I
50 IP age
,,-"'-,
~.1',,
0
-,:
~ ih
The African Comrni sion on Human°and PeoP,?es•
'C
~ , c \ . l'-u·OI" Rights,
.
~
3, Bijilo A.nne
1
ayo-0~1 Kq_Q2bo ~~h p_iitr~t
S/v3st tS,?srRegio0i•Gamo)
Phone: (220):230\1~61 F/li:'(-220J4~,tOS&4
Email: au~rljdl@)africa~ur.iiCri'.o.rg
http-~tw?au.inuo ,, n
t~'\, AC HP R
\\\
J.!t African Commission on
~..
•;,
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
,
advertise with her magazine as it was critical of government and this made it difficult
to continue with the publication of the magazine. That she then worked as editor of
I
Addis Press, columnist for Feteh Newspaper, r~gular contributor to the Ethiopian
Review. Addis Press and Feteh were also shui down due to numerous death threats
received by its journalists as well restrictini their revenue base through warnings
I
given to their advertising clientele not to advertise with these papers. She submits that
as a result of her work, she continued to receife death tiyJ1{~,~~1,intimidation directly
.-/·.~··Y
I
• , '~ ... :.
and indirectly from the government offiqials; (EthJqpJan Peqple's Revolutionary
I
··.-.,;: ,::,
i,:.;
Democratic Front (EPRDF) as well as warhin,,~s::;.{~om\~~~1',~•~To:2§Y::Ri~~.~!,~~.t9 stop
'·t~[t~r
~;;~ffig~f;g~ their
writing about politics. Similar threats ~e~~} ~'is~:,;~;~iyed
_,··:< .. ··~l.
"·t
"""•t~~>:~::.,.
neighbours for her to stop writing.,,aFticle~:;She also<submits ··tfj'at,she was finally
/W
[' •.• '.
' ··
V < :·
arrested, prosecu~ed and convict~a:•,,of co~s~i~aciy to commit it1~or~st acts and
0. . . . . \
~>·
!
'-<~:;/{'.}}, ~
•' •. -~: , i: . ,.
participating in a terrorist q;ganisatidn;µpqier the··2pO9Terrorism Proclamation and
./~~:)
<::;;;rt,{;,"' .
\' ' •._,_ . <
Criminal Code respectiV:ely:il#Ji,i011, fot~~;ld~Me,,after sit~ 'J:~ktd published an article on
<· '
-~\~.'.-tfJi\::'"~.
tf/t>f
~:.,;z~::n·:it.
);> •
Feteh criticising the:·~!~!9t_an G@1r00FentJs pF~~~tt5i:fuild a hydroelectric dam and
1
1
its associated f~r\ci-raising activitie~\:\j:\,,
166.
.}>/
I
I
The Collill,lission notes that the Ch,~i!~~yguarantees the right of every person to
:-. ,
·1.:;,'.!,ii:,
express and diss~rrtinate his or her opini;J::~rally, in writing, in print or in any other
forrn,o,£ Communi~a.t~on ~ithin the 1!w. Thb Commission also notes that Article 29 (1)
"/ ··,:·~,..
·." .· .···,,,
.•• ._,:
I
and ',(~i~t:~tv~, Ethiopian,.¢?l:~~itrtfion pr~vides that "Everyone has the right to hold
\'\-:,
~-~,<·t.·/•1'.;;:_';-i•;,,._
I
opinions.~pithdu{'friterf~.rence" and "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression without
\~,}
././j)"
<;_.:-;:·· t-i'.V~('.;,.,,,i,-·.•·•.Jt,
any interjet<;,~fe". This "ri~lff~hall include freedom to_seek, receive and impart information and
(
,!,,-
ideas of all kt~qs, regardf;ss offrontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art,
't:::
or through any:l~t(J,dia
of his choice." In this case,
the Second Complainant as a citizen of
,_.,,.·
I
Ethiopia was ~~ercising her right to express her opinion on particular issues of concern
I
to her in writing and print and dissemina;ting same through a media of her choice as
I
protected by the Constitution. It is therefore the obligation of the Respondent State
and/ or its official$ or agents to ensure tha;t this right is respecteq:~a~ by the
•
I
•
,{?;.o~ ~C,~~•AR14,- '°~
Respondent State. Therefore; by sendin~ the Second Compfimfnt~~~•th _tI\~-ts,
contributing actively to the closure of tjer
51 I P age
.,,,,.,,,,
A~~~gij~
•• •
I
I
1
~
(
~ "\. ig $
,t"'
~-ll:'l:r:,
The African Comr;nissLo\on Hu-m~ti,.,andl~-PPms
•. t_ ~t., Al.I"'-""" /.. ~Rig t!
31 Bijilc Ann~~ Lc(YP,[!t~~.Q,ill,.J?..O,Ng__~t:l<)(?j~t, ~t,
, 'f-'.e's~C.P~R!3¢'g·io~XG'a bia
Phone: (220) 20~.13.6.)M~ax; ~-~0:)~4',:: 5 04
Email: ·ati;;baojJf@'afr.1ea- nion.org
https:".ia'c"hp~.au.int/0 @ a
p.CHPJl
, /~,-------<~~,
AC H PR
f! African Commission on
,,;/
,.
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Human and Peoples' Rights
magazine as well as other newspapers that she was working with, intimidating her
and her parents to make her stop writing her ~rticles would amount to a restriction of
I
/interference with her right to freedom of expression unless same is provided by law,
..
. and.is a necessary m
. 9-Idemocrattc
. society.
.
serves a 1egittmate
aim
I
Is the restriction/inter£ere nee provided by l~w
.
I
.<iil'~;~'.t,<,;
167.
'>
' , •·:,,
-<i/:$-;,-
I
In determining whether the restrictioJ of a,ptf,~fur:(s fre;~~tn of expression and
/\J
',{<.1;,,,,;•
I
access to information is provided by law,{,!~~,:-~~i~§,1~13;~,;11~]:~~;}?:;g,::~--J?SJI v
Cameroon as follows; "in order, to rletermine',ivhether·aJlenial 'J]::a;:broadcastifif}{&nce was
',' 'i
,::,
'.::/:,:,
"prescribed by law", the interference mu~!, nave:i~OfY!C_ basis in domestic"74rr a,114,Jhe law should
l\i
1·,_
~i
·.;c,-:,
-,,,
be ... formulated with sufficient pr~,£{~i,~~fi,;,: to yo,:e~~~,:::{o •a degree tha~;!,is, reasonable... the
,_,,,,,.,..
I
, ..
consequences which a given acti~p may enrai,i::~(1ond, the-:1ornestic law must afford a measure of
legal protection against a~ei~iiry inte1fere;tliJ1j)p,y publt't-',cttlthorities. "76 Similarly, in its
Principle 9(2) of the D¢ci'ara;lB¼t:,\..
• :,·' •/.: < ··-. '~.~ ..
r(;ri;)"'
~rittf~~-:~.{/f'
r<i:::Jt'i~,
th~'-t~mmission has also set out
I . ·,:•;:~'.~'.J~;t?~::~{?
•
the c~iteria for ~~te.rminirig whetn~~;~ts:>:,re/~icti~plin~erference is provided by law.
That is, the domestic
law must be cleat};;
,r cis.e,
accessible and foreseeable as well as
t ;, •
.
,,
:'..-:::r
'n',
-
provide effectiv~ ~-afeguards from arbitrai; r i~terference and abuse.
•
':·
":'. I
'
•
'
• ' • ,: ':· '•
168.
\\};1~~)3econd C:~n1plai_i:t:clr:tL;~iihmit$ /that she was arrested and charged with
·<:~\' ··<:,\.;t::~):;?::1~>,,.
'
• --~ :';.:·t·...:s-:,,.,·
•
'
violatitl$ Aftid~~'?7Jl)(a), 38(1) and 648 (1) and (2) of Cri~nal Code of Ethiopia 2004
and Arti~les ';l;~ia~d:~}01 JRe 2009 Proclamation. She submits that the Proclamation of
2009 doe~::t;·t meet tni>:tandard of being provided for by law because it contains
'•~''.\
.
.
.
broad definiti:o:Q.1>,1of "terrorist acts" in Article 3 thereof and "terrorist organisation" in
Article 7 therdi/ That to meet this criteria~ it is 119t merely the existence of a rule in a
national legislation but the law must be sufficiently precise so that individuals would
be able to regulate their conduct accordingly. The Second Compl • ::,.~~~.:: its
that the various criminal offences listed in Article 7 thereof req
76 Communication 290/04- OSJI v Camero011, para 140
'
i.}J
I
8
'
§
•.
~
~
52 I P a g c
~.-,,,,.,
Afriyin('.l'il
rd
Un.on "' ,r
The African Commiss Qn o
, _ \t"'
-~, __
,(.
31 Bijilo Anri·ex L.~~t, )>J'f1%0•ri-lorffis:-Di.
.
Weist,C6',fst1Fr,egii0n'B'arn6ia
Phone: (220) 230 4361~~~-US 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.lnt/0 Ci) a
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
.
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
)
overly broad definition of terrorist acts in Article 3 thereof results in creating an
ambiguity in scope which makes it impossi°Gle for a member of the public to know
whether his or her actions fall within the scobe of the law or not. She further submits
I
that the provisions refer to a wide variety 01 legitimate conduct as many activities of
everyday life are enumerated therein. Th~t the proclamation also fails to define
specific terms used which leaves its applicat~on being opened to abuse such as against
.
I
_,----, \,:·,:.,"·:·:,-.
members of the media. The Complainant /also SUb}nj.ls··thaf)11,e wording used to
describe the intent in Article 3 thereof is /broad,:'.~ha>,:i,mspe~·ifi~.I That the phrases
•
I
"'·' ,;~-· c:-.
•
"intending to advance a political, religious or i~q,9l,9gic:pl
cails/':,<',c<J?T.,cing-the, gover,rJ,ment,
l.,,>,:.':::V;{Li,,,•;:::r··~~
-.,_-~~n
,
..... "', .. ,.,,
,<;
·'·
., ~-.
'
;,
intimidating the public or a section of the pubJi¢;[~ra;lliihj!i~(ng ;;YJ~1trpying tiie funiiamental
'\(:)r\
.1tj!:)\:::~nr-i-,_
'\,.
>~.
.
political, constitutional or economic or sp,cfal 'tftsJ/ty}ions ii], the country.':! or.:~r}estabilising an
I "<1:I;,f'.t
>,•:
A:f
\' •;. '
institution" are broad, unspecifir:,J:i::i-Ats,et n~ bSil~~p{' In light of t1!k'aforementioned,
the Second Complainant sul;>mits th:/t1}¢>r~stric~i~h;i~ther freedom of expression on
the basis of the Proclamatio~.'.~c}S not pr~~f$~clby 1a:i~ct~ffi~s constitutes a violation
,·.
• •
··,~tt:::
I ·: .-.,,-;·
>
I
: :c-:--
•,
of Article 9 of thed~~~~lt~r\:,.
i::·,.
169.
Article 3 hf the Proclamatioh:-0£2009 defines."terrorist acts" as "Whosoever or a
gJ
\:;· ;-. .,. I
<•
group intl;ndini;;Jo advance a politicaI;-<religi(?US
or ideological cause. by coercing the
f
1; ".;;·-.,.
"- •
·<ti'/
government, inti;hi~~rng the public or ~f ctio_J/of the_ public, or destabilizing or destroying the
funcl.qrl!ental politi~"ti({q,qJ,f~titu_tional o~i[ieconomic or social institutions of the countn;:'' (1)
''
,/}1/
·-.:;~,:::)f~,;:~J :',-,_
••• ~- -.,
causesKperso11-'s death iifs~fiiiJHf:,pg,~ily injury; (2) creates serious risk to the safety or health
0
1
of the publi~ o/:;~.ction. of tr~~'
. r; :~• ; ~ '
',
'. -'.,.•,,
;~;:bl;c; (3) commits kidnappi1Jg or hostage taking; (4) causes
,
serious da1;h,ageto
propefty;.(5) causes damage to natural resource, environment, historical or
·~
"' _·:
;
"/'
cultural he;it~ges; (6) eri.dangers, seizes or puts under control, causes serious interference or
'
•
disruption of apy public service; or (7) threatens to commit any of the acts stipulated under
\'1'
l
sub-articles (1/to (6) of this Article; is punishable ioith rigorous imprisonment from 15 years
to life or ivith death."
170.
Article 4 of the 2009 Proclamation states "Whosoever plans, prepares, conspires,
incites or attempts to commit any of the terrorist acts stipulated under s u l i ~ ,
If{.,\...., V~~"\ A¥ O~
of Article 3 of this Proclamation is punishable in accordance with th~etfJn~(~.lty/~i?.J,c/vided f~
1~ } \ \ \ •
under the same Article."
• /
•
,
I
•
J'
.iY
53 I P a g e
·'"''"""
African('6;)
Union\ii
,,,. '·
~ii
Jo
en
The African Commissl ,\o~t-11:1man ai{a"P~gpief"'
• .
~~ '\, '-------'R,ight#
31 Bijilo Annex Layo~t, K6IT\l)~ Nor.th~Gistridt,
• w :st c tR
~-4•·,:<L,~ G - <;\b":
e:; ~ o.a~~ egIon. ,em
Phone: (220) 230 4361 'Fax:'.:(l?Q)~;t-o!fo4
Email: au-banjul@afrtca?urilon.org
https:lachpr.au.(nt/0 0 a
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
_. .
Article 7 (1) of the 2009 Proclamation states ;'Whosever recruits another person or takes
training or becomes a member or participates in· any capacihJ for the purpose of a terrorist
'
organization or committing a terrorist act, on the basis of his level of participation, zs
punishable with rigorous imprisonment from 5 to/ 10 years."
Article 7(2) of the 2009 Proclamation states "fhosever serves as a leader or decision maker
in a terrorist organization is punishable with rigorous imprisonment from 20 years to life."
Article 9 of the 2009 Proclamation states "~osoever kr;R,fvlftg[[}Jor;')~aving reason to know
I
::":'·-·
.,,,,:_1,:' ·
that a property is a proceed of terrorist act acquires or,.p.6:~J~s~es or;$~$ or deals or converts
or conceals or disguises the properhJ is punishablk, ,sypject ~~tt~rRrop,~i~J,:9ei?Jgforfeite,d, with
'
,"',
rigorous imprisonment from Sta 15 years."
'«~\:'./~''?>:(
• •• ·.,.
'''
'
'<,
_:,;;
·~,.
<i';,\,:"~•,:'i
'-'t\;}\.
.,
\
'.:_;;,;
--~<//
~"?•<,••
,::>::,,,;/jct:·
~,,-;,]!t,,
Article 2 (4) of the 2009 Proclamati~p s'ta:t~-~}};,rrori'sf drganizafio:~;ii\~{;ivs: a) a group,
of n'otf·l?~::han two membffs/fvith the objective
association or organization which i~;059~,f~!,~d
of committing acts of terroris~.-.Pr ~lans~\p~~~~res, exec~t~.~"'~r cause the execution of acts of
'·:,
'"'._-J._,,,:t,i
. •
•~(,f;'(;•~\
,,0i'f,,~•' ~• :;•~:'.::\,
. . . . ' ,.•--:-.
terrorism or assists or inc;f,t(i~:(sqthers in aif,r/iivqy to coh'ir,tjt--(lcts of terrorism; or b) an
n,-•
:
,• ,,/
organization so pros~ribecl as ter%ij~t,/~:-ff:c~rdprit~[\1!~~;t!z t~is Proclamation."
.-- ,
171.
···, ,,.,
~:t~:/i!:f1V
•
·,-1
.'.-
··•.:/;;J;?;t~~;<?:.-,
From the ,'above provision&;'.;tJhe Oommi'ftJ:ron notes that the definition of
'terrorist acts' a~d the elements tha~'~J~~tifute tet:orists acts in Article 3 thereof are
cl~fiJn);tf'·,
broad, not preqi~·e, and not formulate~t;;fWith sufficient precision to foresee the
··~i
",
11
',
'"" I
co11sequences which):1.given action riiay e11tail. For example, it is not clear as to what
'-.\ •. , .
'•
~
,
..
.
~
I
amd~'i,i}$,::: 1tg "destabilziz_kga;.or, dC;stroying the fundamental politicat constitutional or,
\:'.'-\,:t\::~i '.:;:(~ti:~,'.;,_,
-,,, . '.,\ .:Z. ,', ;i· ,,,,'econoni(c,or'soei~Ai?l~litutions of the country" or creation ofserious risk to the safety or health
I
'
II
of the puittfc or,<efJ~ii~i,::~JiiH.ffublic." Secondli the offences enu~erated therein are broad
\~J~{ ~;'-
)}~/,;
I
enough to 'i(\~lude
legitimate/lawful acts which would otherwise be protected under
~'
_. \
national and{}nt~rnational law.. Also, the definition of 'terrorism organization' in
,i'"\·',·
•
Article 2 therJo'f and the "terrorist acts" in Articles 4 and 7 thereof are all linked to the
broad definition of Article 3 thereof and' the offences listed therein. Therefore, the
application of these provisions is susceptil;,le to being used arbitrarily or in an abusive
I
manner against certain category of persons or grou1Js or orga • -tions. The
t,.,N ANo P.,~ ~, .
!
,
, , •
.
COffiffilSSlOn also notes that the Second CComplamant 1s a JOUrnahsb"aste-V:ii!ten~@ • , y
,
,
I
w~
the various media houses she worked fo~, the establishment o~\r1r~~wJgie
I
54 I page
Afri;;;n '.ilwi''
Union~)
;
I
i
I
#I
~- \[tr-~TJ)\ \ ~ ~
The African Commi~·1sion orur~12,;::d:e;ii:~cn
31 Bijilo Anne' f,9.yStt, ~mbcN,Jortl),District'?
~esf.~gastBsigior\,.~a'in~~
Phone: (220) 23 ~361'Fax¼(?.20,),4~1 o~~
Email: a~•bar:ijul@afrlcacl:ffil()r!~&rg
~''I.Vi'ti,'-i,-L.
ht1P~i~.~cr~11tfr..i O G
I(..
'
~~
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
,,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
I
was later forced to close and the internation!l awards received for the work she was
doing as a journalist and disseminating infofmation to the general public 77 . Further,
that the publication of articles in the media on issues of interest to the general public
as a journalist are activities which are -protected under the Charter and the
Constitution of the Respondent State. Therffore, there is no basis for its restriction
under the 2009 Proclamation as a terrorist act, and doing so is a violation of Article 9
of the Charter.
•
.~:ct:: '~f~\}1
.<f , ;;:
'
Does the restriction serve a legitimate aim kl).4Js, pec~t~f,~J:,;1:ji~¢:n1,qcx_atic So_ciety?
0
'"i{~r;~_ 02c1;2'~W
172.
In determining whether the ~,i,~fricn9r\~(:'~ves ~}Jgitimate'~iT;;j9'd is necessary
in a democratic society, the <;:J:{Kl, 'ssio~ r'ef~rS,::tb its jurisprB1c:tence in OS/I V
Cameroon where it opined '~,t.ha;· the int~tfgr}nces zdi;~_\he Victim's freedom of expression
'
/; ('.~~~
\~) '.i<~'f>
•
·:-:
>
do .no~ meet the require~e,rfti/ij~i{)~~fuln~:~fJfn/4~~-t~1.'ticl~ 9\(~J:~oj the ~fr~can Charter and
Prmczple II (2) of the {)e9l(lratzon-:o}J;'.:f,r:eedom of Expr~e,~ZOJp'The Commzsszon therefore need
0
not examine wheplfe~ th~se ·1tterfe;;~~~f ursJed a z~}tit:ate aim and were necessary in a
'<~i;P ·•
demo~atic society::,
173.
In light ofthe ~bove, the Corripliss·!9ff also notes that it has made a finding that
the. :r_estriction ha~<no'.b~~is in dom5~tic la~ as it does not meet the requirements of
lawf-qln~l,s .. because .it 'i~}r:19p,.foriiihlated: with sufficient prec1s10n to foresee the
conseJ~;~ceg,i~yl:H<,,h,.a giv~~·";~;ion may' entail_ and thus violates Article 9 of the
\:•
\
A,,.O '."
•,
A
•, •.
';
''
'••'
,
,
....
Charter. Therefore, if~ilt :hot examine whether, the restriction serves a legitimate aim
·..
. /
and is necessary in a democratic Society.
Alleged violaHon e>f Article 16
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Article 16 (1) of the Charter provides that "Every individual shall have the right to
174.
enjoy the best attainable state of heaith." Article: 16 (2) provides that "State Parties to the
present shall take the necessary measures to protect the health of their people and to ensure that
they receive medical attention when they are sick{
175.
The scope and application of the Article 16 of the Charter has been clearly
espoused by the Commission in its /Principles and Guidelines on the
•
I
... J'
I
•· •·
:.,: _. ,.-'•_' :~
Implementation of ECOSOC Rights in the African Charter:9ri ~uman and Peoples'
•
I
, ,.·
. •
'
Rights (the Guidelines) of 2011 wherein i~ inter:-iili~. ·st~tes ,;H1eiright to health is an
inclusive right that encompasses both health carJ and the u~di.flyi.'t}g,eff/;erminCl,:zts of h.~alth."
,'
' ' / ,' i: '" ' ,
, ... , ..
---....... ,
·_; '
:"""~,
... •- . •
It also sets out the minimum core obli~a ,i~I S O • '})<'~~ to eij~;tir~ thetbest~atfainable
-'
"·, ~ ._-. ,f'..,_
•1hi'~~;}n
state of physical and mental health "':':.Die '11~)t}ig.e arrf•""'g others;:(1:lS;t!.f.Wg the right of
/. :::~
I ·\:i{;L'.:i:lk:
t(
.,
,' '
access to health facilities, goods c1.p,c!._~;~rvice1 oti(~/~K.)-discriminatory·basis, especially
for vulnerable or marginal!,~ed group(:,11:J Purohi/t1~~~- Moore v The Gambia, the
Commission stated that)enjoyment of the;'hitb,z(ln righi'i~)health as it is widely known is
,
°J,Jiifil'{;,'
---,.:,·<''...
..,_,,,,,
t.;_:,-.. __ :;.'_\.
\,.,_\'J7
vital to all aspects
s'tij~~r'tlc}IJ~ll~+kJPJ!;p:/faa1 to the realisation of all the
other fundamentaj;'lfuman rights cmd fr~~,d,q71:s. fhis risrztincludes the right to health facilities,
•ti
acces$ to goods
176.
~eroices to be .guara~~,[d t~~al/ tvitlwu t discrimination of any kind."
1
The SeCOI\f-k<;=omplainant subw,its t:r;,;1.t her right to health was violated because
sh~: was diagnos~J:t·:, 't,h tumours i~ bo~~--breasts but not given adequate care and
'·.
·'"
'" ·•: ·
/'."}~.
.,·., ,<J,'.t1·
treatifi~nt o/~ilst in de eiJfiQ1;7::,,~t~i~K contributed to a significant deterioration of her
\
\
y .... , , . _ ; , ~--
.,-:-
_,: •
'"-,\.'\:)y_::t·J.JJ~::),1;','·'
,'·-,
health>?).le·a1s0::~uhi;nits that her conditions of detention were inappropriate and she
,. ·.
.'( ~
'
suffered delays
in receiv,ing
treatment. She received inappropriate post-operative care
. ,_,
.
·,·' .
._-, .,..
'
'
and insuffi~ient medication and was not transferred to an appropriate specialist
establishmer{t.·fgr)treatment and ca,re, was not given follow -up appointments as they
)'· .·'
were cancelled,. was not seen by any med,ically trained personnel post the operation
I
and her medical file declared lost upon a request from the Commission to make it
.
I
available. She further submits that as a result of the poor treatment and care and the
I
•
horrendous living conditions .in the pris,bn, she was suffering .q;.0~~>,ma,
,
Lo~
~~1'~RIAT
• 0~
typhoid, chronic gastritis and sinusitis at the time she was re~l~§i'teL··8.trom.• •. iso1i'I'. 1 ,
!.?
, ~ i -a, '
2015. She relied amongst others on t~1e
.
(':)Ji § ~ •
•
56 I P a g e
''"'"""
Afriqan(t,;
Urnon li.m.W.
I
··· ··· ·
·· · · . ·
· · · · · · · · ... · · ; ·
! •
The African Commi sion o fumal\1-r),d,Pioples_' ,'
li '·
~
/Right~
31 Bijilo ,l\nne --~yodt'l1,l1Jmbo.NortUi-0isJsc;u
•est Co'ast J~egidrt r.a'ri1,;{
q,
,
Phone: (220: 230 4 .§.ltEJx·
./s ,
~(U\4j:p) n4
Email: au--6ar.i't1I
ea:;;umon.Q[f!
https:/achpr.au.int/1') 0 11:1
' I ..
AC H PR
•- _;,~,!~~~,
r.,,1:J African Commission on
Human Rights our
Human and Peoples' Riqhts
Collective Responsibility
Commission's Principles and Guidelines on the Jmplementation of ECOSOC Rights in the
xrt'irst;v~
Charter of 2011 and jurisprudence 78 in suppoit of her submissions.
177.
To determine whether the Second Complainant's right to health was violated
I
.
by the Respondent State, the Commission/ notes that at the initial stage of the
I
prosecution of this Communication, the Secdnd Complainant had raised the issue of
.
I
her health status and therefore requested/ the Commission to issue Provisional
,.,f0(,~:'.Dv~(i1f~> ',
I
Measures. When the Commission decided to be seized{0flne:('.;0mmunication, it also
I
"'-..:;r," 'fv14
//.~,--)"
issued provisional measures requesting thJ Res:pc5J4~nt StatKthrough the highest
I
A)/
~-<;;:;;; )¾\,
office of the land, to provide medical care to f;~r4~tJQ? tReci~E?tfa~~;'.~f{:~~,-~~~~g~ndent
--' t:::.
:~;- .<-..\,
• """ '1::,((:1>:c-:,:1;;,,?t\+-,✓
1
--<-i1.<:\1.
medical expert to avoid irreparable harrr(J? the s~·cond Co~plc;1~nant arrd,~fo report
back on the actions taken in this reg§ltd ;wi~~In 15 d~ys. The C6~l~§ion notes that
I'•< :.
A'')
\J,,/'
/ _;
the Provisional Measures letter .~!~:_;~tspatJh~d-:cm:? April 2014 qrtd received by an
official/ agent of the Respo~#:ent Sta~~-ijtfit~~1Apri1''2oji~.J1owever, no report was ever
received on actions taken<f~~ffhr Respo~iJ~i~t1§t~te a~~bt~tstatus of the health of the
6~~1
1
Second Complainant. A:r~miilfi~1}¾§l_iii;nt
~/i~c;ly:1:2615 but to no avail.
•'i:;q\"·
I
,;\Wll"
_«: •- -- -· ••
178.
The Commission also notes ll::re:medkal eviclence on record which shows that
· ·'
•f<(~:;Y?'.:i:~)?~ I
•'
,
the Second Comr~ainant' s breasts were4e,~~~ned and diagnosed at the Addis Ababa
,
·:. ,• ~'..
\)~:J~/f
r:
University, Faculty\pf Medicine (See,~Arur~~ 1). Annex 2 is a Fine Needle Aspiration
Cytpl9gy Report ,(FNA<;,. Report on.{the t~o breasts and_ Annex 3 shows the breast
\'"' . . ,h,.,
'
'
'
ultr~i~~~!l::~nd
surgery~that:wer~\:arried
iout on the breasts in the United States of
o:
;·v.
, ••
•
•
l
• ,
r,
Americ4-:wher~ $Ji1:~;.q~rrently resides, after her release from prison in 2015.
179.
Th~:::<;;9ihm~~-~i&~t;&{~s
further that in its Guidelines on the right to health it has
,, .~/
yV
indicated tB~,t one of the core minimum obligations of State Parties is to "ensure that
\:,:\,
,,
I
prisoners and oth<{fpersons deprived of their Uberty, under any form of detention, have access
/ \ ;..-
I
•
to conditions of detention consistent with human dignity and the highest attainable standard
of health. Measures taken must ensure adequate food, clothing, exercise, )}y,s·'.ea security,
~
.....~MN ANo
~T'
~ 0 ..,_~1'ARIA1'
'-o~ v..,.
~ ,,_
.o~o,. .
~
•
Mc'lf'-o,~ ~
~
, para 80, - Communication 105/9lf'128/94 -,J~Oi94 -).Lif.%,
- Media Rights Agenda & Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria , p~ras 89, Communication 13fJ194-li?'9/~j5_~\96-161i~~
International Pen and Others (On behalf oJSaro-Wiwa v Nigeria, par~ 112, Communication 54/~tJ.il/9\l-98J,9i;164/97 ~o0 iil
196/97-210/98 Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritaniq and Communication 378/0~Moiilm
Elgg'l5,,\@sm/n~
Hummeida and Amir Suliman( represented by FIDH and OMCT) v Sudan
1. 0 '\;i, ~, • / ,___<t' tJ
78 Communication 241/0lPurohit and Moore ·o The Gambia
,;,~
57 I
p
''"'"'""
agC
AcJ~~~ij)
I
'
✓~
~_,.,,#.., ~"
The African Commissio 1,,.on(~ffPnant?ifn~ ~efd'_R s'
• "-~~~~Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Komtro:IIJortir'District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.orq •
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 llll
-, . ·.•.
,t ;-~-.~-. ,, '· ·,~.. .,._ '<' ''
I
?"""~) AC HP R
i!f African Commission on
',,
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
,
reading material, rehabilitation programmes and medical treatment. This should include access
to trained medical personnel, essential drugs, qnd access to preventives measures against
diseases. Special emphasis should be given to the: health needs of women in prisons and other
places of detention."
,
I
180.
From the medical evidence and tHe provisional measures issued by the
Commission,, the second ,Complainant neeked medical care. Therefore, it was the
I
"""' ••,,,,,
responsibility of the Respondent State to profide it to,2fiJWitij~e;~:·tny distinction. This
responsibility wa~ heightened because shel was
i~~tt~;~ ~tt
of
liber? ~~d in the
custody of the agents of the Respondent StateZ9 It waS"glsg, tl}e":1:r~.~pqps1b1hty of the
•
·
·
. /=/ :: .:·",,.
'(1(:}'.;::<i/"'''<:.c::;,;r::.·,::C,;,,,,,,. :;,'
Respondent State to ensure that the medkal ·treatment 'fiitelude ~c"c:~~s;J;'.fci'trained
.
<< ·; -~J - •
, .·\· ·:-·\
·-:<l{iJ·~:_:\
medical personnel, essential drugs ~pd acc±.~·$/i,to copc;litions oflc;i~t~Btion consistent
I -~:_ :<·~ '< ,,
--tf\"
"'<t?~ .fY'
/ ~-:
with human dignity and the hig!J:![~J::~ttaina)bfo·cst~ndard of health.
~,.
~:.-~([j;}?J•r~.
)
" ,,~.:- ,.~:
J., 7"'
181.
The question is wlwther thei~;~~spondenf:;:State has complied with its
/{-~:J{
\ttc:t:h;:.
.. ·-.<_ .'-r>.. :-·.
obligations. The Second Q:6ri:t,:pJp.inant st;t~s:fb:gt she was_ dtstgnosed with breast tumor
t.
~
·(t{{;~)i-,.~
J::;//
r
·:;:~t~::;1~;.>,_
/· ., •
in her left breast it;.y~f!X, 2012·,1it1".bti-d a ~urg~r,:y,1,p(Jhe tumor without anaesthesia
,,/'. , ¾,<:.,,,h
'':"{,:3'.<.
I
'',,;,>:':'
~eaving. her in e1:eme paincl~ring>~Qi,;(~l the s~;tgery. She was tak~n back to prison
1mmed1ately af!,~;r the operation and ch~j,ngJ::have any post operation treatment_ or
/<.
..
<dt,f''
observation at tn~[J,,ospital. The stitcJ:1.es w~re to be removed by the treatment doctor
aftE:r. one week
'"
•
•,
~tilt~7,yrison au)ffeori~~s failed to take her back to the hospital
r:.~,•,<•,\;.,.
'.''
:t
I
claimii:ig_that she had n:6:,eR:P,P}Ji}gj,.ent and the nurse at the prison health facility also
', .\
,,
.
";;,,~;f;,E~i~:., .. ,,.•• ~ ..
,,. :'-
failed te>·n~ise',t!,1~. wpund thereby leaving the stiches unattended for the duration of
':
'
• ·1~- --· . ._ J
, ,·. ',,,"'
her detenti.911. She-~l~~-~pb~its
that the she used her clothes and some cotton given
. ,.
by the nurs~\t,o remove the bleeding of the- breasts daily with great pain and suffering
and that she ·only had one post operatio~ visit at the hospital in July 2012 but the
stitches were hot removed and another appointment was scheduled for 13 January
2013 but it was cancelled. She finally saw a Radiologist on 12 Febr
confirmed- that she has fibroadenoma on both breasts which' were beI.,,
I
i
II
-_,
l
79 See Communication 105/93,-128/94-130/94 -152/96- Med/a Rights Agenda & Constitutional ~i~fits
(31 October 1998) ACHPR, para 91
1
I
I
581 page
Afri~nf~)
Union~V
\~,<. n
~
~
~;
~
~
-.,,,~ "Ss
The African Commission on·· uman '.rndi,
• ,,~hCJMMF~g
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Korril:l0-:~,pf!t-i;P.istf➔c ,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220)441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au,!nt/0011:1
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri9hts
.,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
that a Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA) Procedure be conducted to confirm same but
instead she was compelled to do a biopsy, a more intrusive procedure as
recommended by the Prison Facility nurse on 13 March 2013 despite indicating FNA
I
as her preference as per the Radiologist's ad/vice. Upon receipt of the biopsy results,
another surgery of the right breast was r~commended but after series of failed
I
appointments, she was not operated upon dnd she stayed with so much discomfort
:
,1"';;''>;,
and pain on the right breast for the remainder of her :timecih.'1_:n:tson. She also submits
.·
..
I
. ..:· .·;'_•,•},
that due to the unsanitary conditions of tre pr;iso·~~ ._s}:ie als·o· contracted typhoid,
chronic gastritis and sinusitis until the time ~~e::·f?~--relea~e~fr9111)~-ison.fn~O,JS,
182.
In light of the above, the Commis~t§i·;;~t~!ii~fl~J the R~spond~nI State'did not
.,,,,j,;{:lJ;j~;f.~1k
•
't::,),} '.;
i. :.',_
, ' · ~,~.
comply with its minimum core oJ:,ligati'&ri;s,\:tinde#::}¥\rticle T6.. ~df,tp:e Charter as
:~·":'\
/ "t::t:1.>!~h·,;p
,r-;1?·
•
\,-° _: __ /
exemplified in. its jurisprudencE:,:a'rt1Jhe Gfid.J1ib~f!.· in that it ha~·:not provided the
Second Complainant with ~s:cess to ~oriqi1~ms of\1f~te11tion consistent with human
'
",· 1~'>/j\·:-
: '.
>->\}~, })_~,
_/"'•
dignity and the highest ?tta~nable stand,ardt.9£:health d4e(it8·poor sanitary conditions
•
-. . .
<:,: _~~- ~i\
.. -~\~~-· I ~~.>: .: ,.
jf!j,_,,..
of the prison. It ha~'.'~!~ffi3Jled tb"'~~e-µieas~res't0~~11~~ptadequate and timely medical
treatment inc11i1i~g acc;,;s to ~t~,¢,f!ti_~l /drug~;'./&ained medical personnel and
' '.•:
·, .• ·., ..:: I
preventives me·~:$µres against diseases/haying regard especially to her health needs
:: ·.::
~:
•
I
,
as a woman bec~µE;e
the treatment a,nd
c_are
given to her was grossly inadequate
to
, .. ,, ,.
'-I
.
gua_ragtee her he~Ii~i:;:;~t::;i;ather left !Jfer in~ situation which was both life threatening
\ '~~ '';.
·<"-··i:),{/f-j\11.>-
,,,,,,:·~;(!}'
I
•
and .'j~opardiz.;ed her lie~lfl1;f;,.;I~!b'.!i1lhe ab~ence of any counter evidence and/ or
\
--......
~-~ .. '•
• ~-·- :J:,,:;,,:,.,.
•
'
•
•
submi~s'i<;m~--frqpl>the){espondent State and having regard to its non-response to the
•
<·:,_.:·
~---,-~. ····:·~,.. ~.
\
Provisimi~l .Measures is~tied to prevent irreparable harm to the Second Complainant,
the Commis~ion finds a violation of Article 16 of the Charter by the Respondent State.
Reparations
1
•
~t>.NANOp
.
O~'<'-~~~RIAT
•
~O~
183.
The Second Complainant alleges that she suffered both R'~i~~'i'_-~r.y-ana'\no~..P.
I
•
i,11~ /~--·~0 \ •.
•
d. an1ages as a resu It O.f the :VI~
. 1atlons
•
• h e /~,·mpns~1fl
• ~ t ap.;
:r.
pecuniary
resuI.ting In
U:
1
should be awarded damages.
8
~~ ~\. '
/
I
\
.
.....I.
591 pa g C
~ tl~
\; i,
,-'.I
~~
~\)~~f-..
J,t,~
<J¼ '-"
.-;.;,s - - ~'<.- .§
S/ON A.:R\C~
~~'<-
The African Commission o~ll~«HJ,Q(f'Jto~§ •
~ g hts
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District,
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
•
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
The Commission notes that Article 1 ,of the Charter obligates State Parties to
recognise and give effect to the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter.
Therefore, any violation of these rights by the State shall give rise to redress and
reparation to the victims of the violations. This is also in line with the Commission's
I
.
established jurisprudence80 and internationa!l law81 . In its Principles and Guidelines
I
on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal As~istance in Africa, the Commission has
I
e<:::":•;;r:,1,1:i:,• ..
established that everyone has the right to an effective ; 1~~eay,(9aj:;y:iolation of the rights
granted by the Charter which includes accJss to
suffered. 82
juJ{[!~, and r:;iation for the harm
I
·"/r;,'."'";::i.
The Commission further estal:?li!;>he_d tlfat:;;fan~Bc@afipp:,, 1;1,lso ip.clude
0
j:::,··,:(i, :>,
''<ttil( . ,,•.,,,:t:::'.;'.:!r;::y:tY
1
restoration, and material and/ or financiaJ:~_:oinpens~fi9n arn:Fifiir,:t,µst be fairta:Clequate,
•
::L<.:·:\;.,J·~
, t· ~:; :·'-;\
<V~:;j~:::,;;;~,,.
effective, sufficient, appropriate, s~?:~sfacto~Y:·:·t~the vktim and""p'.~:tf~~ftionate to the
·>: ,_·:.,.
~amage suffered. 83
/
'·:.,,.
185.
I
•
C/
.
..
The Second Complat1-:~mt subn1{ts,, that her imprisonment for 49 months (21
/:r~-.
•
''<~<~:;d :,-
"··"
t-
June 2011 - July 2015), ,;pf~(~nted her,Ji~15;fas9.~tinuingle/ professional work as a
journalist, high sc.~9_?iJ~~~-~~e;li~ijt~fd;·a~d .iBii~[~~~J6,~t income to the tune of ETB
327,369. She was}Iso prevented fro'rt¥~~,qp.tihuing_j€:r studies in political science at the
Indira Ghandi Op.en University Schooi:~,;Ei~J!P~sp~ndence which she had paid for and
•
\jt/
:I
received relevant 1>,ooks for the cour~e w,hich she had ordered. That she eventually
'- ·' ,,_
.
·,.:
I
had.to terminate her•Jtu.dies because'she h1d no choice.
\{tt?::·1~·,,~....
• ~~<., ___ ,' t:,~::- :, ,
. <;' .: . >'
:
186.
\)Tµ~SEHµlegatioris a:r~;:$tateti'in the ~igned witness statement dated 14 January
\~" :\ · ,~ . ~{<~~?/{~{,.=:>,,
., •·~• ',~o\1, < ""
<
2017. TR~re is'"'~lt,p::),W,.~ounter evidence disproving that the Second Complainant is a
journali~t::te.a:Eh~r"
'-' .
~ia}fJeg; who was in gainful employment at the time of her arrest
,,J,,.
80 See Communication 59
;c_:ifii:mbga Mekongo Louis 11. Cameroon para 2; Communication 253 /02 - Antonie Bissangou v Congo
para 84; Communication 3131/ 05- Kenneth Good v Botswana para 244-(1); Communication 318 /06 - Open Society Justice Initiative
v. Cote d'Ivoire pa.ra 19; Communication 379/09- Monim Elgak, 04man Hummeida and Amir Suliman (represented by FIDH and
OMCT) v Sudan para 142(iii)(a); Communication 389/10 - Mbiankeu Genevieve v. Cameroon para 130
81 UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy ~nd Reparation for Victims of Gross Violati0ns..of
International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (200~u~AN A N ~
82 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa - (c) Rig1}½t~E~GL1i~R 1-N"em';~~
para (a) an~ (b). (2003)
.
"
i . .
.
\9J ~ .
<t,_ \
83 Commurucation 389 /10 - Mbzankeu Genevieve v. Cameroon par~s 131-132; See also UN BaSlC/ ·'qnc1ples a,·q":"":G"wdelm\l_S on .,
the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Hu' ful Rigl'hts, 'a~.~nd s\r'rou~:
I
(.J
~;
,~-i
Violations of International Humanitarian Law (2006)
ll~
"'- ,••••·•
6 . u,
. :z:
1
;f/.
I
d'._
'(.)
\~
60 IP a g c
('
0
~✓-
tl.j>.
t>-\J•V
/
I CJ'l:"
~ ,;J
The African Commissio. ~n I-ID",nan ano 1~itjilgs; ,'
~~
,v l\t--'"R\\, f;l~h •
31 Bijilo Annex Layout~~~~6'61Nor'tiif'DisVI'ct,
.,,..:-- ~ G .
.
West Coast=Regron 1.:>amb1a
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-baniul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
AC PR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
,,
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
and her enrolment to the Indira Ghandi Open University. In the absence of arty
'
evidence to the contrary, the Cofumission is:'minded to believe the facts stated in the
'
signed witness statement of the Second Co*1plainant wherein she stated the outfits
she has worked for as a journalist, the incident at the school where she was a teacher
'.·
I
and her work as a tutor. Therefore, the Commission finds that she is entitled to
compensation for loss of 12arnings and potential earnings due to her imprisonment
•
•
;
<~,•-~'•••;~~'••••ff/
which should be paid by the Respondent State subjec:.ttd.pret~nt,ation of the relevant
•
•
·
I
.,./.::;,:(·.•(f!,t/\
documentary evidence and verification of the actµa'.V;~~punts dµ~ and payable if the
I
:tHf
'•i:,-':i/·. :i~~.
! ,. 'f
~-.. ,; . • s;1.c~.,
' <!<;l !~ftrf
human rights violations had not occurred. ,j,
,'
;/:t.tr:ii~:1[?:"~;;;:':;::::~i'
187.
The Second Complainant further- Jirgues' tJ;ta:t she 'is.r:ti'~l,so entitle0/ to non,?.-•'.;'."!·,:
\
''T\(f},•,
···;-;·\
pecuniary damages because it is ~~11 ~sti:i~i}~h~_d inj~ternatiori'Jl:(~~~:•!that where an
individual suffers physical and /otJn~ntal harm ~s:,! consequenceJ)(~ breach of their
rights, damages should be a,';a.il~ble a~ ;~it.1~£ the
-~d~~.81~ remedies. That she suffered
serious and debilitating: -:pfiy'.~Jtal and ,ci~it~t;injur~~kl~S::; result of the acts and
omissions of the R(:.;~~ti:~te~i'.~~~;f~, ,,pa:;ic*l~r11:~~~~ sohditions of her detention, her
.•·"·.:·..
.•. ·..
. .·:
I
- ..
tre~tment whil!f ~ de~ention inclµFi?gj failur~. to provide appropriate medical
assistance had q(§.~nous impact on her hf~~'~, .. ,
l'.':-\:~\
·)
-~t1>;-
188.
The Corrirp)~sion also notes 'ithat Jbllowing the arrest and detention of the
~:;:-:(;:•~,: :·\.
~;,\
I
.
Seqmd Complain11'i~1:;'<;,eyJle was keft in very unsanitary conditions, subjected to
\
'
•,,
'>,_
;"}::\r;.-{l•i
.<'.«:-t?
prolo3:geq. int.~rrogatioH~ft~fu~:ftfftai stress, refused access to visitors, and when she
'
'
was di~gno,sed,:wfrh tumor in her breasts; ,had typhoid, chronic gastritis and sinusitis
1.
, •
-
. ~.
• .
•
but did not re~eive ad~qtiate and appropriate medical care. As a result, she had to
. ',
/)";
endure prol?~ged pain and suffering anq. insomnia. This situation inevitably led to
frustration, anger~ emotional stress and atjxiety about the risks to her health. Her right
I
to health continued to be violated by th~ Respondent State throughout her time in
I
prison despite the Provisional Measures: issued by the Commission in this regard.
These facts have not been countered by'' the Respondent. St~·ate
®_,:. -i i·e • ave not
~~.,.>--• .. ,'l) ~
.
.
I
.
.. ~'\\~ :'(P.,RIAT
•
reported on the 1mplementat10n of the Pr;ov1S10nal Measures_:,is~tl.
189.
~,s-~
fl ,, ~ ~ "' '
In light of the above, the Commission holds that u_·n<il<.tr the Cl(F~stan°te~ ;he
fj:;;
I ~'•1,./ )
I
I
Second Complainant is entitled .to nOJ;l 611 pa g C
O,c,<
··· .. ·
·•
·••• ··
•
··
•··
• • • ••• ••• ••·••
',
•••
~ ~- \
,·J ffJ •
0
. ;~~Gs-
The African Con ,rissfon on Hfman ahd;Peob s'
-\."V
.. ,•;¥,
• °"-;,, '::r,Ss : r,i:::..""' -~((. ·I. hts
31 Bijilo Ann 'l'..ayouf'Rbrn1tb [>Jo~,. 1strict,
''·\~esflGoast:t~gj_orf'Ganibia
Phone: (220) 230 43°@!:;i;ax~(-220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@.africa-union.org
https:/achpr:au.inUO O a
•
-;,,,j
\.~I
0
•
.:
' ~
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
pecuniary damages for the extended pain ai~d s1J.ffering physically and emotionally,
anxiety, frustration and diseases contracted .whilst iri prison for 49 months, and the
•
I
impact it has and continues to have on her life. The Commission therefore holds that
the Respondent State should pay financill •compensation that is adequate and
I
satisfactory to the victim as well as proportionate to the damage suffered by the
I
Second Complainant; in line with international law and standards applicable to
n_u~{Jfu~~:_and_
mode of payment,
Payment of compensatory damages. In asseJsing the)ly
"',·,•'.<
.
, .;-; <
I
\,'., _ '
.
the Respondent State shall also consult ~he S<;!COQ"~>§:ompfif~ant and. her legal
,i.'~ffe'ifi\fi,,\' ;~'.\
representatives.
/-~'··' ·~<
Decision of the Commission on th:
190.
< , •• ••••
~.
.~~;11; ~~t~~{ij)
For the foregoing rea~_ons, the Cqm.r¢ssion:··cc1;:1::t::1,,
.:
i.
•
';?.fl'.>;. 7; ::~!
' \ ..''; ;ft.,,
declares that th~:)z¢~pondent,:S~~f~·-:has vi;f~J~\iffthe rights of the Second
'"
•;,~ ;,:\
.· , / / <( 1Zi\
_t;✓-
•
ComplaiD.?rmprotectJµ!1!nc:l~r Article~)b.9_and. 16 of the Charter;
ii.
request/;~:~-~~~ Resp~J~:~ritStJte pa;~.:~d;quate, suitable and satisfactory
,f<~
'·'.\:.,':, j
~comp,~:W,sation to the Second\~.<:PW,Plainant for the violation of her rights
\'/::<\
i\
"'··,l·\·•.F .,
underiifie Charter as follows: . . (
•1
• ·z;t/\\
• !f:
(a) for lit~-~::•'0f earnings ~.t,id pqtential earnings due to her imprisonment
:.: subject. to,,,- t~iJ~ti\~&{Ql;iof tl\e relevant documentary evidence and
, \ ~~riffc~#op ¼of the actual amo~nts due and payable if the human rights
\i.... ,
,,/' •..
,_;' ',
r:· • ::r.:
I
0
' vi,c:Hations hc\<l,::not occurred; an<:l
,·,
.... ,.
(b)ifor the extended pain and suffering physically and emotionally, anxiety,
·<r-.
frus;tr 9tion and disease$ contra¢ted whilst in prison for 49 months, and the
•
I
impact it has and continues to:have on her life. The compensation should
I
'
be adequate, satisfactory and proportionate to the damage suffered by the
Second Complainant, in line with international la~w~~cl.~aards
~~A ~NO~
f
d
I
?~
!<1~RIAT
~9~~
.
bl
app I1ca e to payment o comp ensatory amages. n asseis~!g-me
uan~,s,.
'
'
I
I
I
d ent State sh a11 aIl0icon
ff; i;:; u l ••~;
- •• S '" ~
and mo d e o£ payment, th e Respon
1 • eGoRu•}.
1
I
I
O
U
'
'Z
,
62 IP age
•
I
\
ci.
~
C
'•''
~\l
J,)1--
1~-<
i
~
Q
0
&:>
The African Commissl 1!onCHu
an and PeoP.l'es'"-'
(S..
":-;.at
~ - · .,i
~v
...
.
\ ..,." '"ss, . • _
~•9~J§
31 811110 Annex La ut, KomSo· Nor-tfil'61strict,_;
West':_~_oastc~.~9i~o,GiiTIJ:i1~
Phone: (220) 230 4361 ~4'!~05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
.
Complainant and her legal represe~tatives;
iii.
'
declares that the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation in not in line. with the
I
Respondent's State obligations under international law;
iv.
request the Respondent State to/ take steps to amend the 2009 AntiI
Terrorism Proclamation to bring: it in line with international law and
I
standards relating
to the combat ofI terrorism; and
•
.., ... , ..
v.
requests the Respondent State tp inforn:1d!,~tl@~~ssion within one,./:)tf
--;._~i.j;S\
hundred and eighty (180) days of b~ih!g;i):igtified \~] this decision, the
·'-i:/::·;; :~· ..
>'
f}!'.~~
measures taken to implement the prese:nJ decl~j§: infi£qppgq. ce wit.b- Rule
·.. f~·t·_'·:/ ~'-_," ·.:.: ·-,.
~"<('.;._
;-r:
•~•••,.~::::.:,,~:}\;'.:]~:)
112(2) of the Rules of Procedu;ec:if the CqJnTT1issioR,.J)J,0.
A" •
'<if:t.,. \; •
·t~~~;iv'
•• ' ,,,,.
"'~t;;;,r
Adopted at the 72nd Ordinary Session 1!ft' ': ,:,'.,. Afri~an>€ri)nfission on Hq,hl~n and Peoples'
Rights held virtually from 19 July_,if·2 Augu r::q~2
,;;itt::it;~·,·__ :· ~
::.•.>.·.:.•ft,,..'.·,·.. :--
~,-: <'i:':"•\\,,
• ,·:.,
'<:!if '
,:::}},7
/:/;}V
·,; ttt:7:·:Ii<:·
'<r:(~;~i~~r .
~
C
·~
rl
631 pa g C
~•
Q
,
The African Commiss1ot,2n ·HyJrtan.and·P~gp
1
:
~
0/1/ .\•RIC.-F•' Rig
31 Bijilo Annex LayOtl!1~olJ!,q9.rM_qi_i/1,ID~8t,
West 'O~k~_Lq_o::G-ambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
https:/achpr.au.int/0 (J a