Previous 2 / 46 Next

(i, "i�J\ ACHPR 1 ) African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Communication 459/13- Devendranath Hurnam v. Republic of Mauritius Summary of facts 1. This Complaint is submitted to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) by Devendranath Hurnam (the Complainant) who is a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius acting in person. It is submitted against the Republic of Mauritius (the Respondent State), a Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Charter). 1 2. The Complainant states that he qualified as a Barrister and was called to the bar in 1975 in England where he also practiced briefly. He returned to Mauritius and was also called to the Mauritian Bar in the same year. He practiced law as a Barrister in Mauritius for a continuous period of 33 years. 3. In 2001 he was charged with two counts of knowingly receiving stolen property and one count of conspiracy to hinder police in an inquiry. The charges emanated from his representation of suspects in a bank robbery in 2000. It was alleged, quoad the two counts, that he knowingly received payment from the suspects out of the money robbed from the bank; and quoad the one count, that he and his client (robbery suspect) conspired to hinder police in an inquiry into the robbery by fabricating an alibi. In 2002 the first two counts were dropped. He was tried and in 2003 convicted of the conspiracy charge and sentenced to six months imprisonment by the Intermediate Court. 4. He appealed against the judgment of the Intermediate Court to the Supreme Court of Mauritius, which quashed the conviction and sentence. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) of the Respondent State appealed against the judgment of the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) in the United Kingdom. He also lodged a cross appeal. After the hearing of the appeal before the JCPC and pending judgment, he introduced new evidence with a suggestion that the hearing of his cross-appeal should be re-opened. On 27 April 2007 the JCPC dismissed this new evidence and the suggestion to re-open the hearing of the cross1 The Charter came into force quoad Republic of Mauritius on 1 October 1992 in terms of Art. 65 of the inslrnment of ratification having been deposited on 1 July 1992 Page 1 of 45 Afric.an ,, Union\...!;/ African Commission on Human and Peopl 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo Nor West Coast Regi Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) Email: au-banjul@africa https:/achpr.eu.in ·.. ·-\ /!

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