'AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
UNL\O 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 ·ul africa-union.or • Web www.ach .or
Communication 656/17
Anas Ahmed Khalifa
V
Egypt
.Adopted by the
African Commission on Human and Peoples• Rights
during the 23"' Extra-Ordinary Session.from 13"' to 22"" February 2018
Banjul, The Gambia
Communication 656/17 - Anas Ahmed Khalifav. 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 30 March 2017 from the Organisation of
European Alliance for Human Rights (AED), AMAN Organisation, Mrs. Hager
El-Sayed Khalil and one other individual who sought anonymity (T) (the
Complainants), on behalf of Mr. Anas Ahmed)<halif (the Victim).
2. The Complaint is submitted against the ra Republic of Egypt (Respondent
State), a State Party to the African Charter on uman and Peoples' Rights (the
African Charter).1
3. The Complainants submit that the Victim is a 30 year old Egyptian national
employed at the Egyptian Telecom Company.
4. The Complainants allege that the Victim was arrested on 4 May 2014 by a group
of officers and soldiers, some of whom were in military uniform and others in
plain clothes. I is allege~ that no reason was given for the arrest. The
Complainants asser that"tne ictim was then taken to a location which was
undisclosed to his family and lawyer and was kept in detention for a month. It is
further averred that during this time the Victim was tortured, which allegedly
resulted in him admitting to fabricated charges.
5. The Complainants aver that the Victim was then presented to the Public
Prosecution without the presence of a lawyer. According to the Complainants,
the Public Prosecution conducted c).n immediate investigation and transferred the
case to the Military Court, despite the Victim being a civilian. The Complainants
assert that on 01 March.__2016 the Victim was sentenced to life imprisonment in an
unfair trial by the Military Court composed of military officials who are not
required to be trained in law and based on the self-incriminating evidence
obtained under toi:ture.
6. The Complainants allege that the Victim was held in the Aqerab Prison. The
Complainants add that in prison the Victim went on a hunger-strike in protest of
the unfair trial, as a result of which he was placed in solitary confinement as
punishment.
1
Egypt ratified the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on 20 March 1984.
7. The Complainants aver that the solitary confinement cell was very small with no
ventilation outlets, painted black and with no lighting as the prison is built
underground. They further state that the cell has no bed or water, and the Victim
was detained under such conditions for eight (8) months. The Complainants
allege that during this time the Victim continued to abstain from food, and that
when the prison administration realised this, they resorted to force feeding him,
which caused physical harm to the Victim.
8. The Complainants aver that the Victim continues to be held under the conditions
described above in the Aqerab Prison. The Complainants state that in the
summer the temperature in the prison is very, igh, sometimes up to 60 degrees
Celsius, and in winter it is very low, sometimes up to 1 degree Celsius.
9. The Complainants submit that the Victim was beaten severely by the prison
administration, resulting in unconsciousness and at some point the Victim was in
a coma. The Complainants rthe submit that the Victim's health is seriously
deteriorating and he continues to be denied medical care.
Articles alleged to have been violated
10. The Complainants allege violation o rticles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 19 of the
African Charter on fl'uman and Peoples' Rights.
Procedure
11. The Secretariat received the Complaint on 30 March 2017 and acknowledged
receiEt on 24 April 2017.
12. The African Com_missioq on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) was
seized of the Commurucation during the 60th Ordinary Session of the
Commission, held from O to 22 May 2017.
'
13. By letter and note verbale dated 09 June 2017 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.
14. By letter and note verbale dated 22 September 2017 the Complainant and the
Respondent State were informed that the Communication was deferred during
the 22nd Extra-Ordinary Session.
15. By letter dated 24 November 2017 the Complainant was informed that the
deadline for submissions on admissibility expired on 09 August 2017, and that it
was no longer possible for him to make submissions on admissibility. By note
verbale of the same date the Respondent State was informed that the
Communication was deferred during the 61st Ordinary Session.
Analysis of the Commission to strike out
16. 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.
17. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission,
either party may apply to the Commission fur extension of the period stipulated.
The Commission may grant an exten ion oftime for a period not longer than one
(1) month.
18. In this case, the Complainant was reguested to present evidence and arguments
on the admissibility of the Communication wi • two (2) months from the date
of notificatioq of the seizure decision which ha expired on 09 August 2017.
However, the c;omplainant did not present any evidence and arguments within
the stipulated time.
19. To date, the Complainant has not (i) made any admissibility submissions, (ii)
responded to correspondences from the Commission, including the last one
dated 24 November 2017 and (iii) has not requested for an extension of time to
submit. There is evidence on re ·ord that the Complainant has received the
correspondence of 22 September 2017.
20. In light of the above, the Commission therefore finds that the Complainant has
shown no interest in prosecuting this Communication.
21. The Commission takes note of its jurisprudence, including Communication
594/15: Mohammed Ramadan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v. the Arab Republic of
Egypt, Communication 612/16: Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v. the Arab
Republic of Egypt, Communication 412/12L Journal Echos du Nord v. Gabon
and Communication 387/10: Kofi Yamagnane v. The Republic of Togo, which
were similarly struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
Decision of the Commission
22. 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