Previous 5 / 32 Next

questions administratives. L'affaire a ete enregistree au niveau de Iadite Cour sous Ie numero 756 du 14 mai 2007. 27. Le Plaignant soutient en outre que, suite a Ia plainte et en reconnaissance de celle-ci, Ia Cour a fixe Ies divers frais qui ont ete rapidement acquittes a chaque fois qu'ils ont ete fixes, respectivement Ie 14 mai 2007 et Ie 04 decembre 2007. II n'y a eu une evolution que deux ans plus tard. C'est seulement en 2010 que Ie Ministere des Postes et Telecommunications a recu Ies observations ecrites relatives a Ia plainte, apres quoi, d' autres correspondances ont ete echangees, la derniere datant du 1er juillet 2010. 28. Le Plaignant soutient que l' on aurait pu s'attendre a ce que I'affaire ait ete reglee, mais a ce jour, rien n' a ete fait a' ce sujet, malgre plusieurs rappeis du Plaignant. .<f 29. Le Plaignant soutient enfin que, meme si I~§':r'ecoursinternes existent, ils ont ete retardes de facon anormale.·· .,,,' L'Analyse de la Commission sur la Recevabilite AJ· '. 30. La recevabillte;desCommunications introduites aupres de Ia Commission est regie par I~s:"~xigencescoritenues dans l'Article 56 de Ia Charte africaine. L'Article 56 ~nonce sept conditions qui doivent etre cumulativement remplies pour qu'une G9M:nunication soit declaree recevable.? 31. Comme indiqu~"'~rus,haut, I'Etat defendeur n'a pas soumis ses observations sur Ia .recevabilite, irf~lgre Ia po§sill,ilitequi lui est offerte par l'Article 105 du Reglement interieur de la @omirliSsion. ~;".d:.~,i :j:~,. Ies circonstances actuelles, et conforrnement a Ia pratique de Ia Commission, tel qu' enoncee dans I'affaire Institut pour Ies Droits humains et Ie Developpement en Afrique c/ Republique d' Angola, «face a I'incapacite de I'Etat de traiter Ia plainte deposee contre elle, Ia Commission africaine n' a d' autre choix que de proceder a l'examen de la communication, conformement a son Reglement interieur, » Dans Ia meme decision, Ia Commission a reaffirme sa position en soutenant que: «... elle allait proced ~.. en de Ia Communication sur Ia base des observations soumise~~l?"a~~t~-s lJ2I~gR~ s et des informations a sa disposition, meme si I'Etat n' a pas ~(~tfmiS'eS ()bserv~"" ns. »3 Par consequent, la Commission doit tenir dumentif~m~ e ;~lle gtI~ s du Plaignant dans Ia mesure OU elles ont ete suffisammept-€ ay~. p E I ~ 9. AU·UA f '" 32. Dans /"~ ac ~ .• HU ... ~"" <::i irl'& ~ "Qv 4~1C />.\1'1'<- ~"''''E 0 «_"> /f C, E'T OES ~ Communication 338/07 - Socio-Economic Rights and Accountabiliiu Project (S igeria (2010), CADHP, par. 43 3 Communication 292/04 - Institut pour les Droits humains et le Deoeloppemeni en Afrique c/ Republique d'Angold_(2008), CADHP, par. 34; Communication 159/96 - Union Inter Africaine des Droits de I 'Hom me, Federation lniemaiionale des LigUrS des Droits de l'Homme, Renconire Africaine des Droits de l'Homme, Organisation Nationale des Droits de l'Homme au Senegal et Association Malienne des Droits de I'Homme c/ Republique d'Angola .(1997),CADHP, par. 9-10. 2 4

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 454/13 - Nde Ningo v. The Republic of Cameroon

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Personal Liberty
Right to Fair Trial

Case Head Notes: The victim worked for the Ministry of Telecommunications. After being arrested and charged for complicity in the embezzlement of public funds, the victim stated that they were held in pre-trial detention for four years in inhumane and degrading conditions. After four years of detention, the victim was tried and acquitted. The victim asked to be reinstated into the Ministry of Telecommunications and to be paid "back pay" for the four years of their illegal detention. The Ministry refused to pay the victim "back pay". The victim decided to bring the case before the Administrative Court. The Complainant alleged that, at the time of filing the present communication, there was no response from the Ministry regarding the victim's administrative action. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 and stated that a detention of more than four years cannot be considered provisional and is, therefore, an abusive detention. They further noted that the Respondent State did not provide any justification for the lengthy pre-trial detention. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because the Respondent State did not provide a justification for the undue delay in dealing with the victim's case, and, therefore, the Respondent State had no justification for effectively denying the victim an effective remedy, contrary to 7(1)(a). Further, the Commission stated that the Respondent State cannot rely on the victim's acquittal to justify that the right to be presumed innocent had not been violated (7(1)(b)). Additionally, the Commission stated that the unjustified delay constituted a violation of 7(1)(d). The Commission found that Article 3 was not violated because of the absence of a comparable situation, where another individual was treated differently. The Commission also found that Article 5 had not been violated primarily because the evidence provided, regarding the conditions in the detention facility, were of a general nature and not related to specific treatment that was directed at the victim. The Commission requested the Respondent State to pay the victim "back pay" with interest for the period the victim spent in detention, to pay the victim damages for abusive prosecution and suffering and pain related to their unjustified detention, and to reimbourse the victim for all the costs associated with the various procedures undertaken by the victim.

Country

Cameroon

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Aug 2, 2022

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 3:2: Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 7.1.b : Innocent Until Proven Guilty
ACHPR 7.1.d: Right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial Court

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 3:2: Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Jan 12, 2014 ~ Aug 2, 2022

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 7.369721999999999

Longitude: 12.354722

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Cameroon

Primary Documents

Nde Ningo v The Republic of Cameroon.pdf
French
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 454/13 - Nde Ningo v. The Republic of Cameroon

Primary Documents

Notifications