'AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
UNIAO AFRICANA
African Commission on Human & Peoples• Rights
Commission Africaine des Droits de /'Homme & des Peuples
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Western Region,P. 0. Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia
Tel: (220) 441050514410506; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-ban·ut africa-union.or • Web www.ach .or
Communication 625/16
Basem Kamali Mohammed Odeh (represented by AED and 4 ors)
V
Arab Republic of Egypt
.Adopted by the
.African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
during the 23rd Extra-Ordinary Session.from 13"' to 21"'1 February 2018
Banjul, The Gambia
d~4•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Commissioner Soyata Maiga
Chairperson ofthe Afiican Commission
on Human and Peoples• Rights
--------------~--------------
'Dr.Mary Maboreke
Secretary to the Afiican Commission on
Human and PeopJes• Rights
Communication 625/16 - Basem Kamali Mohammed Odeh (represented by AED and
4 ors) v Arab Republic of Egypt
Summary of the Complaint
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the
Secretariat) received a Complaint on 04 May 2016 from AED and ors (the
Complainants) on behalf of Mr. Basem Kamali Mohammed Odeh (the Victim)
against the Arab Republic of Egypt1 (the Respona.ent State).
2. The Complainants submit that they
represent him in this case.
by the Victim to
3. The Complainant avers that on 03 July 2013, a discnminatory military,: coup took
place in the Respondent State whi li violated all human rights, and sought to
eliminate a specific sector o tlte Egyp ·an society, being the sector that opposed
the coup against the government that was fairly and freely eleejed by the people
of Egypt. It alleges that the coup leaders (hereinafter, the Authorities) who
subsequently assumed leadership 01 the Respondent State committed
discriminatory segr~ation f a, sect~ of Egyp· •
through killing, enforced
disappearances,l'and torture 0£ pnsoners and inm tes, including violating the
rights of wdm n, children and minors in tletention. It further avers that the
victims of these alleged acts were denied their right to defence due to the arrests
and falsificatio of allegations against awyers who represented them in order to
pr,essurize them to discontinue their relevant legal services.
4. The Copiplainai;it als claims..,that the Autl1orities deprived people of their
nation lities, iolated freedom...of..thinking especially that of university lecturers
and generally turned Egypt into a large prison to terrify the Egyptian people,
through lawlessness and µ1 blatant breach of international human rights law.
5. More specifically, the Complainant alleges that the family of the Victim is one of
several families that suffered at the hands of the Authorities after the coup. It
avers that the Victim is an Egyptian national born on 16 March 1975, resides in
Cairo City Egypt, and is married with children.
6. The Complainants aver that the Victim, a former Minister of Supply and Internal
Trade and Professor of Engineering in the Faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University was arrested on 12 November 2013.
1The Republic of Egypt ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 March, 1984
7. The Complainants allege that the Authorities falsified charges against the Victim
and that the Victim was indicted in four trials in which he was sentenced to life
imprisonment in three, the total verdict being seventy-five years and the fourth
case is still pending before the court.
8. The Complainants allege that while in detention, the Victim was tortured and
subjected to inhumane treatment, including: being put in a tiny poorly ventilated
cell with no bed; denial of visitation rights; denial of access to medication; clean
water; denial of access to newspapers and writing materials; prevention from
carrying money; denial of medical care and denial of access to legal
representation.
9. The Complainants alleged that the Victim was ied in: C,ase 7294 of 2013 - 'the
issue of the Protest in the road ,Qualioub wher~ the Victim was accused of
associating with protesters and sentenced alongside 37 othe s to life
imprisonment; Case 1818 of 2013 -'~ issue of Ostqaamh mosque' where he was
sentenced to life imprisonment with eight otherf Case 11531 of 2013 -' the issue
of events of the Great Sea Street' where the instruction of the Court of Cassation
for a re-trial of the case before another judicial •strict after the successful appeal
of the Victim against 1\i s ntence of life,impriso~ent was never carried out by
the authorities
lastly Ca? nl:!,m'l>er ,34150 or-2015 which is pending before
the Court.
ma
10. The Complainants claim that the Complaint has been filed within a reasonable
time in accordance with Article 56(6) of the Charter, after awaiting the
outcoJJte/judgments of the Egyptian courts, and finally that the Complaint has
not ~en P.resented efore any other international dispute settlement forum for
settle ent OI'< djudicaticm.
Articles alleged to have been violated
11. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated Articles 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 60 aIJd 61 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Procedure
12. The Secretariat received the Complaint on 04 May 2016 and acknowledged
receipt on 18 May 2016.
13. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) was
seized of the Communication during the 20 th Extra-Ordinary Session of the
Commission, held from 09 to 18 June 2016.
14. By letter and note verbale dated 24 June 2016 the Complainant and the
Respondent State were informed of the decision to be seized and the
Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on admissibility
within two (2) months.
15. By letter and note verbale dated 22 November 2016 the Complainant and the
Respondent State were informed that the Communication was deferred during
the 59th Ordinary Session, pending receipt of the Complainant's submissions on
admissibility. By the same communication_)fie Complainant was reminded to
submit submissions on admissibility withln one ('L) month, failing which it
would be struck out for lack of diligent proseeu •on.
16. By note verbale dated 13 March 201%and received at the Secr~tariat on 17 March
2017, the Respondent State forwarded its suBmissions -o rt admissibility.
17. By letter and note verbale dated 11 July 2017 the Secretariat informed the Parties
that the Communication was deferred during the 60th Ordinary.Session.
18. By note verbale dated 1 August 2,017 and re& ived at the Secretariat on 19
October 2017, the Responden State indicated that.,,,the Complainant had not
made their ul:>missions on admissibility within the required time frame and
requested th t ,the Communication be struck ~ut.
19. By1 etter and note v,:erbale dated 20 Sef?tember 2017 the Secretariat informed the
Pa ti s that the Com • lainant had been granted an additional thirty (30) days
witH4!- w ·ch to subll!_i;t on agmissibility, failing which the Communication
would, Be struck out for lact otcf.ilig, nt prosecution.
20. In a note ver ale dated 27 October 2017 received at the Secretariat on 24
November 2017, the Respondent State indicated that the additional time had
expired and thus requested the Commission to strike out the Communication.
Analysis of the Commission to strike out
21. Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure establishes that when the
Commission has decided to be seized of a Communication, it shall request the
Complainant to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months.
22. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission,
either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated.
The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not longer than one
(1) month.
23. In this case, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date
of notification of the seizure decision, which had expired on 24 August 2016.
However, the Complainant did not present any evidence and arguments within
the stipulated time. The said period was extended by the Commission for a
period of 30 calendar days and same had exaired n the 22 December 2016.
24. During its 22nd Extraordinary Session which took place from 29 July to 07
August 2017, in Dakar, Republic of Senegal, the Commission decided, because it
was not satisfied that the Complainant has received the earlier correspondences
based on the evidence on re5 ord, to fanted the Complamant a further period of
30 calendar days from the da e of notification to submit evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the abov
(_
25. More than three (3) months have lapse since the expiry of the last extended
"'period and o ev:idence and arguments Rave been suomitted by the Complainant
on the admissi6ility of the Communication. llie e is also evidence on record that
the Complainant has received the letter granting further extension of time to
subJ!tit on admissibility.
"
26. In r
sho
e above,
ter •
mmission therefore finds that the Complainant has
[fin: this Communication.
27. The Commission 'takes no,te of its jurisprudence, including Communication
594/15: Mohammed Ramaaan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. the Arab Republic of
Egypt, Comll\unication 612/16: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Communication 412/12L Journal Echos du Nord v. Gabon
and Cornmunicati~n 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane v. The Republic of Togo, which
were similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
Decision of the Commission
28. In view of the above, the Commission decides to strike out the Communication
for lack of diligent prosecution.
Done at the 23rd Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Banjul, The
Gambia from 13 to 22 February 2018