Previous 11 / 32 Next

soutenir son allegation, il fait reference a Ia Communication No 708/199~ de Lewis c/ [amaique devant Ie Comite des Droits de l'Homme des Nations Unies OU 3 ans ont ete juges excessifs et a Ia Communication Pegnoulle (au nom de Mazou) c/ Cameroun devant Ia Commission qui traite l'article 7 (1) (d) de Ia Charte protegeant Ie doit d' etre juge dans un delai raisonnable. 64. II conclut que de ce qui precede.Ies articles 7 (1) de Ia Charte et 14 paragraphes 2 et 3 (c) de Ia CIDCP ont ete viole par I Etat du Cameroun. II demande par consequent une compensation de 574.680.747 (Cinq Cent Soixante-Quatorze millions Six Cent Quatre- Vingt mille Sept Cent Quarante Sept) de Francs CFA. Observations de 1'Etat defendeur sur Ie Fond Sur la violation alleguee de l'article 3(2) de la Charte et de I' article 2 (3) du PIDCP (Droit a I'egalite devant la loi et a egale protection devant la loi et Ie droit a un recours effectif) :f Sur I'egalite devant la loi et egale protection' dela loi .... ", ,if -: 65. L'Etat defendeur soutient que Ie droit.:~'Keg9Iite et a Ia non-discrimination implique qu'un traitement identique soit ~~s~rve aux personnes se trouvant dans des situations similaires. Selon I'Etat d#endeur, Ie Plaignant n' a pas fourni de pr~:uves d'}In traitement different par'i;rapRort a d' autres personnes se trouvant dans une meme situation. " .. "'<if-:· .. 66. L'Etat defendeur insiste ainsi que Ie Plaignant ne peut pas invoquer l' application de l'affaire Bissangou c/ Congo OU Ia Commission a estime que Ia nbn~execution d.'un jugement par Ie ministre des Finances constituait une vio{#tion 'du principe de l'egalite devant Ia Ioi. Selon l'Etat defendeur, Ie Plaigria.:ntn'a:i,as fourni de preuve d'un traitement differencie de Ia victime par rapporf a d' auq-es'-personnes se trouvant dans une situation identique a Ia sienne. L~rf;:]~Al. 'j . , , Sur le droit a un r~c~urs effectif ", "»., " 67. L'Etat defendeur, releve qu' en invoquant Ia violation du droit a un recours effectif, Ie Plaignant vise notamment Ies articles 236 et 237 du CPP sans indiquer Ies demarches qu'il a entreprises pour saisir Ia Commission instituee a cet effet. II indique que, par ailleurs, cette procedure est applic~15:·e-;a;;~~-~~. e detentions '/ ." c~l1 ARt, 0 abusives et que cela n' est pas Ie cas en r espece. .'0/'~ "'\ Sur la violation de I'article 5 de la Charte et des articl~i 7"",tit 1 ,(~~; ID®~ I roit de ne pas etre soumis a la torture et autres peines ou tiaft&\ent" ('\\uel"~i ' umains ~ ~ '- "'tJ.~-,, / 7f ou degradants) ~~~~coQ ~ II) (~ . .qFRICAII<~ 0", ~....f(; ~ 68. L'Etat defendeur soutient que Ia detention preventive 6ft: OES terdite par Ia Charte, pour autant qu' elle se fasse selon des conditions precises et estime que 10

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