Previous 16 / 46 Next

Human Rights our Collective Responsibility disrepute. " In Communication 293/04 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Zimbabwe, the Commission said "In determining whether a certain remark is disparaging or insulting and whether it has dampened the integrity ofthe judician;, or any other State institution, the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignihJ, reputation or integrihJ of a judicial officer or body and whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on [sic] the institution. The language must be aimed at undermining the integrity and status of the institution and bring it into disrepute. "Also in Communication 435/12 - Eyob B. Asemie v The Kingdom of Lesotho, it further stated that " [the Commission] must make sure that the ordinan; meaning of the words used are not in themselves disparaging. The language used by the Complainant must unequivocally demonstrate the intention of the Complainant to bring the State and its institution into disrepute . " 69. From all the above, it can be adduced that Article 56 (3) requires firstly, that the Communication submitted to the Commission must be written in a non disparaging or non-insulting language. This means it should not be written in a language that is belittling, abusive, scornful, disrespectful or offensive to the modesty of the institution or person. Secondly, the language used must not be intended to undermine the integrity and status of the State or its institutions or the OAU or bring them into disrepute. 70. In this Communication, no disparaging or insulting language has been used by the Complainant eithe� in the original written complaint submitted to the Commission or in its submission on Admissibility. It is only in the supporting documentary evidence attached to the original complaint that some of the language is found to be offensive. These are part of documentary evidence that was used in the prosecution of the case at the domestic level, and it is not expected that the Complainant would have to change the contents of these supporting documents for purposes of complying with Article 56(3) of the Charter. In addition, the Respondent State has not raised any issue regarding the language used by the Complainant in their submissions on Admissibility. There£ re, Article 56(3) of the Charter has been satisfied by the Complainant. �;::: 0".,��-;-;, ◄<\ 11/_.., l/-? ;j Page 15 of 45 .,, 41?1,., " 1i- 0. ,;�, � ;)\ African 31 tc. l l,op1e,• Righ1' 1 �l;lt::i�� rnbo North District. West C.:iast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjJl@afrn;a-union.org · https:;achpr.au.,ntJO O a

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality
Equality Before the Law
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Right to be Heard before a Competent Court

Case Head Notes: The Complainant is a lawyer, who, in the midst of dealing with charges that were brought against him, wished to represent himself without the services of an attorney. The Respondent State denied this possibility. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 stating that the right to litigate one's own case is protected under the African Charter, and because, otherwise, those who are unable (because of financial or other reasons), or unwilling, to use the services of an attorney will be deprived of their right to be heard by the Court. The Commission also noted that the right to litigate in person is not refused to the representatives of the State, so to deny that right to the other party is unequal. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that, given that the Complainant was refused the opportunity to present his case in front of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee, the Complainant was denied the opportunity to appeal to a competent national organ, and, therefore, denied the right to have his case heard. The Commission further states that no substance would be left to the right to defence if it meant that individuals, whose rights are infringed, can only pursue justice through the services of a third party. The Commission asserted that the right to be defended by counsel of their choice is an entitlement and not a requirement. The Commission found no violation of Article 26 stating that the Complainant submitted a series of allegations which could not be sufficiently substantiated and cannot be considered as solid evidence. They also state that they do not have a reason to conclude that the Respondent State has not allowed the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of human rights, as required by Article 26 of the Charter. The Commission requested the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to ensure the reopening of the proceedings, as requested by the Complainant, and to allow him to be self-represented if he desires. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to ensure that its laws and statutes, regarding access to courts, are in line with its obligations under the Charter and to provide the Complainant with financial compensation.

Country

Mauritius

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law

Rights 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 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 7.1.c: Right to Defence

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts

Duration of Procedure

Sep 18, 2013 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -20.348404

Longitude: 57.55215200000001

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Mauritius

Primary Documents

Devendranath Hurnam v Mauritius.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

Primary Documents

Notifications