146. Having said this, the burden of proof could, therefore, shift on the Respondent State to
demonstrate that the law indeed protected the Victims and that there was no differential
treatment given to both male and female Muslims to justify their intermarriages and any
restrictions whatsoever. However, for what is considered in the record and all attempts,
the Respondent State never submitted on merit, and there is no evidence to the contrary,
the Commission finds a violation of Article 2 of the African Charter.
147. The Commission reiterates its position in Amnesty International and Others vs. Sudans? that
it is unjust to apply religious laws against individ'llals¢who do not follow that religion,
and also that non-Muslims have the right to b~,~~~g~&,gy: .a secular court and not by
Shari' a tribunals. The Commission considers ili,e applicatio'l? of Sudan's criminal law
discriminatory and violent in this context.
~,_"
148.
,';.t "':
e COIPPl,issiort ffngs the Respondent
On alleged Violation of Article 3: The R'isht to riq;uality BJfore the Law,qud Equal Protection
of the Law.
:\'W
, 'i
.}j
~<
149. Articles 3(1) and (2) of the African Chart~1'i\provid~:;
"Every individual
.1 be eq1;fqlbefore <,tMe.'flai~J and t 1
equal protection
',
. <\{ ,
t
,very individual shall be entitled to
,,:
150. Conceptualizin
the parameters of this, the Commission understands that Article 3 of the
African Charter 1i:~stwo components: the right to equality before the law and the right to
equal protection'
e law. The right to equal protection of the law means that "the law
shall prohibit an ,~p~rantee to aIL"persqn.s equal and effective protection against
discri,binatioll to the'm~i:tning ascribe! ~, it under article 2 of the African Charter.P Thus,
/:,>~dt>
";\'-f~1~11®"
';"~;,,,: "
.
I
the right to \'egUj\Jity bef
eans that all are equal before the courts and
tribuna:f~;&'Asfor. t11~>right t
rotection of the law, the Commission recalls its
decision if! Spilg an:d/WJ.ack& DITSHWANELO
(on behalf of Lehlohonolo Bernard Kobedi) vs
Botswana that it cpnsists of the right of all persons to have equal access to the law and the
courts and to be treated equally by the law and the courts." As a result, to prove a
violation of Article 3 of the African Charter, it must be shown that the victims did not
receive favourablejprotection
similar to that accorded to others in the same situation. In
the context of this Communication, the question of whether there was unequal treatment
of the people is raised.
151. The Complainants gave an account of events from the indictment sometime in 2013 on
allegations by one Al Hadi for adultery charges, and the conviction of the first Victim for
/. ,.,-
-
. "'f_D
>,
"'<'0:&
48/90, 50/91, 89/93 Para 72 and 73
-:.
(..-;:"f1t.p. "r
83 Application 032/2015, Kijzji Isiaga vs. United Republic of Tanzania (2018) AfCHPR para 84
. ':;/'
--......._ <~.'
84 Communication 277/03- Spilg and Mack & DITSHWANELO
(on behalf of Lehlohonolo Bernard Kobedi) ~f- BO\fw~aw ~\
(2011), ACHPR para 159
("
,)
~
" (",
0 Uijl
'}, \;_,
p.\J-\J~
),2h.!J
82 Communications
g'
"j'f
I
~/~v
UfO
( J.t
•
I'~
~~
..,.
~v4"R1CI\\~~
...
"
c)\'''
O!V';lE ET Dt'..
---=,,,...~
-:?'
~,.