contrary of what has been alleged,
of the Complainants to be true.”°
the Committee considers the allegation
55. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State is in violation of its
obligation under article 1 of the African Children’s Charter by failing to
prevent violation of the rights of Said and Yard through its inaction, and
failing to enforce the 2007 Slavery Act to prosecute and punish the former
slave masters and mistresses. The Committee notes with appreciation the
legislative measures the State Party has adopted including the 2015 AntiSlavery Act, which criminalizes slavery. Nevertheless, the Respondent
State has not indicated the specific measures it has been undertaking to
prevent
slavery
and
to free
children
who
are
under
slavery.
The
case
concerning Said and Yard was brought before the domestic courts after
the aunt of the children conveyed an application. The lower court only
convicted Ahmed Ould El Hassine for the crime of slavery but left the other
family members with impunity. Furthermore, its decision sentenced Anmed
Ould El Hassine to 2 years of imprisonment, which is less than the
minimum years of imprisonment provided in the 2007 Slavery Act.
56.The
Committee
been considered
found
from
its fact-finding
mission
that the appeal
has
by the appellate court and a decision in favor of the two
victims has been given. Even though the situation of the two children has
improved currently, this does not relieve the Respondent State from being
accountable for the violation Said and Yard faced during the time of
slavery, by lack of appropriate prosecution, and prolonged court
proceeding. A change in the status of victims for better does not change
the status in relation to the ‘accountability of the government in terms of
the act of violation committed against human rights’.”���
57.Concerning the decision of the lower court and the prolonged appeal, the
Respondent State argued that the judiciary has its independence in
handling cases and hence other organs may not interfere in proceedings.
The Committee views the State apparatus as one entity. All organs of the
Government have a duty to respect, protect and fulfill the rights recognized
under the Charter. Moreover,
States may not invoke their internal
Government structures as a justification for their failure to meet their
obligations under the Charter. In this regard the Committee shares the
view of the UN Human Rights Committee in that “the executive branch that
usually represents the State Party internationally...may not point to the
fact that an action ... was carried out by another branch of government as
a means of seeking to relieve the State Party from responsibility.””°
58.As aforementioned, the duty of due diligence is measured by result and
requires prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment. The
Committee notes that the Government of Mauritania has taken legislative
and other measures to criminalize slavery and prosecute the El Hassin
family. However, the measures taken by the Government fall short of
preventing the violations of the rights of Said and Yarg, which took place
for more than 11 years. The Committee further notes that the investigation
8 Bousroual V Algeria (n 4 above) para 9.4.
27 |aw Office of Ghazi Suleiman v Sudan (2003) AHRLR (ACHPR 2003) para 40.
?8 UNHRC General Comment no 31 para 4.
16