74/92: Commission nationale des droits de l'Homme et des libertés /
Chad
Summary of Facts
1
1. The communication is brought by Commission nationale des droits de l’Homme et des libertés de
la Fédération nationale des Unions de jeunes avocats de France. The complaint alleges several
massive and severe violations in Chad.
2. The complaint alleges that journalists are harassed, both directly and indirectly. These attacks are
often by unidentified individuals who the Complainants claim to be security service agents of the
Government. The Government denies responsibility.
3. The complaint alleges the arbitrary arrest of several people, among those four members of the
opposition party, RDP, by the security services. These people were never brought before a court,
although they were eventually set free. 15 more people were illegally detained, but have now been
liberated.
4. There are several accounts of killings, disappearances and torture. 15 people are reported killed,
200 wounded, and several persons tortured as a result of the civil war between the security services
and other groups.
5. The communication alleges the assassination of Bisso Mamadou, who was attacked by armed
individuals. The Minister responsible was warned of the danger to Mr Bisso, but he refused to issue
protection. Subsequently, the Minister did not initiate investigation into the killing.
6. The communication also alleges the assassination of Joseph Betudi, Vice-President of ligue
tchadienne des droits de l’Homme. It also contains allegations of inhuman treatment of prisoners.
Procedure
th
7. The communication is dated 11 May 1992 and includes a report based on an observation mission
to Chad made by the Association Agir ensemble pour les droits de l’Homme and the Fédération
nationale des unions de jeunes avocats.
th
th
8. The Commission was seized of the communication at its 12 Session and on 16 November 1992
the Government of Chad was notified of the communication.
th
9. On 10 March 1993, the Ministry of Justice responded to the communication.
th
10. On 12 April 1993, the Chairman of the Commission wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
requested its permission to conduct an on-the-spot investigation in Chad.
11. The Government did not reply to that letter, nor to the following reminders.
rd
th
12. A letter was sent to the Government on 3 February 1995, and to the Complainant on 17
th
February 1995, stating that the communication would be considered at the 17 Session.
th
13. At the 17 Session in March 1995, the communication was declared admissible. The
Government and Complainant were informed of that decision.
14. On 1st September 1995, a letter was sent to the Government stating that the communication
th
would be heard on its merits at the 18 Session of the Commission and inviting the Government to
send a representative.
th
15. At the 18 Session, the Commission heard Ms Fabienne Trusses-Naprous, of the Fédération
nationale des unions de jeunes avocats, Commission nationale des droits de l’Homme et des libertés
of France. She reiterated the information in the original communication, both verbally and by way of a
memoire. This memoire, in addition to summarising the information in the original communication,
affirmed that the human rights situation in Chad has not seen improvement to the present day. The
Commission decided the communication on the merits, resolving that there was evidence of serious
and massive violations of human and peoples’ rights. Article 58 was invoked to draw the attention of
the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the OAU to this fact.
th
16. On 27 November 1995 a letter was received from the Ministry of External Affairs of Chad with
regard to the Secretariat’s letter of 1st September 1995. This letter stated that the National Human
Rights Commission of Chad could find no record of the communication.
Law
17. Article 1 of the African Charter reads:
The Member States of the Organisation of African Unity parties to the present Charter shall recognise
the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or
other measures to give effect to them.
18. In this case, the Complainant claims that not only did Government agents commit violations of the
African Charter, but that the state failed to protect the rights in the Charter from violation by other
parties.
19. The Government claims that no violations were committed by its agents, and that it had no
control over violations committed by other parties, as Chad is in a state of civil war.
20. The Charter specifies in Article 1 that the States Parties shall not only recognise the rights duties
and freedoms adopted by the Charter, but they should also “undertake.....measures to give effect to
them”. In other words, if a State neglects to ensure the rights in the African Charter, this can constitute
a violation, even if the State or its agents are not the immediate cause of the violation.
2
21. The African Charter, unlike other human rights instruments , does not allow for State parties to
derogate from their treaty obligations during emergency situations. Thus, even a civil war in Chad
cannot be used as an excuse by the State violating or permitting violations of rights in the African
Charter.
22. In the present case, Chad has failed to provide security and stability in the country, thereby
allowing serious and massive violations of human rights. The national armed forces are participants in
the civil war and there have been several instances in which the Government has failed to intervene to
prevent the assassination and killing of specific individuals. Even where it cannot be proved that
violations were committed by government agents, the government had a responsibility to secure the
safety and the liberty of its citizens, and to conduct investigations into murders. Chad therefore is
responsible for the violations of the African Charter.
23. The Complainant claims that the events in Chad constitute violations of Article 4 (right to life),
Article 5 (Prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 6 (Right to life and security
of the person), Article 7 (Right to a fair trial), and Article 10 (Right to freedom of expression).
24. In the present case, there has been no substantive response from the Government of Chad, only
a blanket denial of responsibility.
25. The African Commission, in several previous decisions, has set out the principle that where
allegations of human rights abuse go uncontested by the Government concerned, Commission must
3
decide on the facts provided by the Complainant and treat those facts as given . This principle
conforms with the practice of other international human rights adjudicatory bodies and the
Commission’s duty to protect human rights. Since the Government of Chad does not wish to
participate in a dialogue, that the Commission must, regrettably, continue its consideration of the case
on the basis of facts and opinions submitted by the complaints alone.
26. Thus, in the absence of a substantive response by the Government, in keeping with its practice,
the Commission will take its decisions based on the events alleged by the Complainants.
Holding
For these reasons, the Commission
Finds that there have been serious and massive violations of human rights in Chad.
Finds that there have been violations of Articles 4 , 5 , 6, and 7.
Praia, Cape Verde, October 1995.
Footnotes
1. The English language version is generally of shorter length (26 paragraphs in all) and is less detailed than the
French language version (forty one paragraphs).
2. e.g. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 15 , Inter American Convention on Human Rights, and
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3. See, e.g., the Commission’s decisions in communications 59/91, 60/91, 64/9, 68/92, 78/92, 87/93 and 101/93.