Previous 12 / 32 Next

ces conditions ont ete respectees dans Ie cas d' espece. Pour soutenir sa position, ilreIeve que pour qu' un traitement soit considere comme « degradant », il doit etre motive par la volonte d'humilier. Or, selon l'Etat defendeur, la decision de suspendre Ie salaire de la victime a ete prise dans Ie cadre de la procedure judiciaire engagee contre la victime pour detournement de fonds publics et qu'il n'y avait aucune intention de l'humilier. II ajoute, par ailleurs, que la prise en charge des personnes detenues incombe a I'Etat et que la Victime en a beneficie pendant sa detention. II dit egalement que la victime beneficia de la pension de la part de l'Etat. 69. Quant aux allegations sur les conditions de detention de la prison de Kondengui, l'Etat defendeur estime que l~( , ~rt se limite a fournir des informations generales sans etayer ses pre\te:~ et 'montrer les defaillances du traitement reserve a sa personne. II rele¥.~)'exe R e d'une communication Bailey c / [amaique introduite devant Ie C~~{!,.de .'1 ~its de I'Homme OU l'auteur s' etait appuye sur le rapport d:une orgaFii~Bti,Y' cm;~g9.uvernementale deno~~ant les ~o~d,itio~s de detentions dans un eta~~~~~~erit~P.;~fli~~ntiaire; le Comite a considere qu unlel document ne POUVaItp~.a lUI seuls fonder les allegations de violation de K~ 'de 104 du PIDCP. 70. L'Etat defendeur soutient que;'"e,Caractere ,,},'pi,trairedont fait valoir Ie Plaignant , "'Iiij'!' '" par rapport . arrestation ou t~g.\~tention p~tyisoire de la vic time ne saurait pas etre au cas de l'espea.e. Selon lui, la limitation de la duree de la '<'" tion prevue par 1'~t!Ele 221 du CPP dont fait reference le _"''''>C''"I:'!''. applicable ati:~caspresent car le Code de procedure ~ le 1erJanvier 2007, soit 3 ans apres l'acquittement non. ""'!'.'h.~ iJ), Iaquelle Ie droit a la presornption d'innocence indique que la detention provisoire n' est pas a la presomption d'innocence, la mesure devant motifs et obeir a une procedure prealablement determinee par la loi. II par consequent, que la detention de la victime ne saurait etre qualifiee d'arbitraire. ur detention 72. S~r l'allegation selon laquelle la victim 11 reparation

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