000s1 2
after the appellate proceedings in the domestic courts were completed in 2006
and it was not practically possible for them to file it as evidence to challenge
their conviction in the course of such proceedings. lt is also not clear whether
the CHRGG on its part communicated the contents of the letter to judicial or
justice authorities or whether the latter had attached the letter to their request
for review at the Court of Appeal, which was declared inadmissible only in 2015
for being filed out of time.
5.
lndeed, if the Applicants had alleged in their application before this Court that
the letter was attached to their application for review before the Court of Appeal,
in our view, this court would have had to examine whether domestic courts had
violated applicant's rights by not doing substantial justice without regard to
technicalities. ln the circumstances, we concur with the majority's conclusion
o
that there are no sufficient grounds to find violations of the rights of the
Applicants entailing the responsibility of the Respondent State.
6.
Granted that the findings of the CHRGG point to the possibility that the
Applicants may have spent over 17 years in prison for a crime they did not
commit, it is our strong opinion that a human rights court ought to explore all
avenues to ensure that the Respondent State undertakes full investigations on
this matter to establish the culpability or otherwise of the Applicants. This could
have included requiring the parties to appear before the Court and making
submissions on this matter. ln addition, the letter tendered by the Applicants,
as the majority observed, comes from a government institution, that is, CHRGG,
o
with a constitutional mandate to protect human rights in the Respondent State.
Although it is not clear whether the full investigations have been concluded by
CHRGG, we are of the considered view that the fact that it is a constitutionally
established body gives some weight to the probative value of the letter.
7.
Furthermore, we do not see how the categorical finding by the CHRGG can
change even after further investigations. Payment of compensation of cows
and money in a traditional setting in an African village cannot be a confidential
exercise. ln any event, the information given by the CHRGG was collaborated
2