from enforcing domestic laws to which all people are subject, leading to judicial
proceedings. The Respondent State argued that the application of domestic laws does not
per se amount to a violation of the African Charter and that any shortcomings from the
application of the domestic laws can be remedied through the Courts of the Respondent
State.
73. The jurisprudence of the Commission has established conditions that must be satisfied for
Communications
to be compatible with the African Charter. To comply with Article 56
(2), a Communication
should allege a violation of any of the rights protected by the
African Charter, it must be brought against a State thatis bound by the African Charter
by a competent person, and the alleged violation.should hav
ccurred within a territory
in which the African Charter is applicable.s- SUd~~.l.,ratifie
e African Charter on 18
February 1986. The Communication brought by the'erganizatipns
representing the four
Complainants
alleges that serious ~
'ri~9!S vi~lation$' have taken place in the
territory of the Respondent State frq' .
Sept~" er 2013, ~'!Je to the cri~nalisation
of
.
" 'tl'
''''''.,''''
apostasy and adultery by the Respond
tate an
e enforcement of sucli'ilaws.
""an
74.
the:;rigiit
The Complainants
alleged the violation of
to family and freedom of religion,
amongst others. It is important to note/t;;):1at th~ "
mission is not deciding whether
human rights violations' have occurred-at :t;his sta,
till, the Commission considers
whether there
"allegations of such human righ :~~violations. On that basis, the
Commission co~!d not at this stage determine wh~ither the application of domestic laws
of the Respon4~}}t State violates the rights protecte~'~y the African Charter to determine
the compatibiHt»lof the Communicalicn.with
the Ch~iter. Still, the Commission relies on
such allegationsl5~cked
by evidence ;rprimn facie violations of those rights and decides
that the requirement under Article 56 (2) has been satisfied.
'
are
75.
The tHird'issue for d
whether the Communication
was written in
disparaging
'or ';msulting
"
'irected against the Respondent
State and its
institutions in terms of Article 56'T(3). The Respondent State submitted that the terms used
in the Subt:llissiop'f?on Admissibility
by the Complainants,
such as unjust" and
.'t,,#,
' """,' '
"', , "
"abhorrent"; ascribed to its judiciary, are defamatory.f
gya:
II
76.
The Commission
found that the authors of the Complainants'
submission
on
admissibility in paragraph 14 attributed the use of the word "unjust" to the Arabic
Network for Human Rights Information who used it to describe the verdict passed
against the first Complainant
and the word
abhorrent" was attributed to Amnesty
International
who used it to describe the case of the first Complainant.
Although
quotations were used, full references have been provided. The words were quoted in the
II
....
,\llr.';r~"
•
0,0 • '!>.
~ "'-V \{f'\ R/4r
24 SIr Dawda K. Jaw~ra ~ The Gambia, Communications 147/95-149/96, para.41; Darfur Relief and!i~cu'=>/nllnf~n-Jtre
v Sudan, Communication 310/05, para. 64.
(;
''''~\'
(
'/
25
Paragraph 14 of the Complainant Submission on Admissibility.
,~
',3
\'0
• .,
~ ..
o
r :
";-<'~\,
'~~y,~
"I
l
1\'J'I,lfl.
C
~<l,
~\
6 o: '1
t
J.5 ",'"/f
'-'c..,\, 4~kl('P.\·"\.
(i
:\.'>..
O_\'~,
.~'v
.\
'f
/'
:,~fI
"',' .( \·',c er n~-~'
.~
....... f)r.'flr;~.,.
,