272. Similarly, the recognition of a person's right to freedom of association "provided that
he abides by the law" under Article 10(1) of the African Charter and the right to assemble
freely with others" subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law" does not imply
that the African Charter allows for State Parties to derogate from this right.
273. To lawfully restrict the rights enshrined in the African Charter, the onus is on the
Respondent State to show that the limitation of the rights is prescribed by law, it fulfils a
legitimate public interest, it is absolutely necessary, and it is strictly proportional to the
aim intended. 53
274. Contrary to the rebuttal by the Respondent State that none of the Complainants was
charged under Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 and therefore
out of the parameters of the Commission's consideration, Exhibits I, 2 and 3 attached to
the Complainants' Merit Submissions show that the 1st Complainant and several others
were charged under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009. The Respondent
State, however, does not show that the restrictions on the freedoms 'of worship, the
freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly of the Complainants by virtue of the
application of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 is a legitimate public
interest, that it is absolutely necessary, and strictly proportional to the aim for which it is
intended.
275. Furthermore, in the Respondent State's submissions with regard to the alleged
violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the African Charter, it only contended that the
Complainants have exercised these rights for years. No concrete evidence has been
provided to show that the arrest and incommunicado detention of the Complainants
under the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009 did not unreasonably restrict their
rights to association and assembly.
276. In the circumstances, the Commission finds that the Respondent State violated the
provisions of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the African Charter.
277. At this juncture, it is imperative that the Commission recalls its decision in
Communication No. 461/13 - Eskinder Nega Penta and Reeyot Alemu (represented by Media
Legal Defence Initiatioe, Freedom Now and Lincolns Inn) v Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia whereby the Commission had occasion to deal with the Anti-Terrorism
Proclamation No. 652/2009. In that Communication the Commission inter alia decided
as follows:
53 Elgak
in
declares that the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation
Respondent's State obligations under iniernalional laui;
IV
request the Respondent State to take steps to amend the 2009 Anti-Terrorism
Proclamation to bring it in line with international law and standards relating to the
combat of terrorism; and
v
requests the Respondent State to inform the Commission within one-hund~
eighty (180) days of being notified cf this decision, the measures take 'Oimplem:~t;h;-:.r-~\
case (n 40 above) para 118.
IS
not
In
line with the
/'!<t Sf
j «
\
I
,
1)-:'
.J' ' ' I\
" . .
AU,UA:-
l
'V A~"RIe j>,.ll'I(_
43,§"'< •,/
, "'A..
VJ
(.
~/Q
~. }Yo"" Mr:ET~
' , ('
(...,
;'
:'