Previous 25 / 46 Next

r) c� !:LEB p.CHPII j Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples' Rights 101. The Complainant then put a number of questions to the Commission for determination. For the sake of concision and ease of understanding, the Commission has summarized those questions in the following paragraphs. 102. The Complainant wants to obtain a determination as to whether that the Supreme Court erred by ruling that Rule 3(3) Supreme Court Rules 2000 is mandatory in the institution of proceedings " before this Court as well as the institution of proceedings before a Judge in Chambers, now requires recourse to an attorney". The Complainant submits that the Supreme Court has thus breached the right to the protection of the law and due process and procedural rights of access to courts [guaranteed by the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights]. 103. He submits that the integrity of the trial process was breached because of the participation of the Chief Justice and the Senior Puisne Judge in hearing the matter, in view of the challenge made against them by the Complainant. He claims that the Chief Justice who assigned the bench of 5 Judges, including himself, to decide his case has been judge in his own cause. 104. The Complainant submits that the invariable consistent stance of the Supreme Court having heard and decided several cases where [the Complainant] personally initiated all such proceedings in person until 2011 is testimony to the wider principle of the protection of the law, direct access to court and not "the result of an oversight" as the Court puts it. 105. The Complainant further submits that, to his view, the repeal of Rule 60 of the 1903 Court Rules was intended to provide effective right to direct access to the courts and the introduction of a provision in the Fourth Schedule of the Legal Fees and Costs Rules 2000 pursuant to Section 198 of the Courts Act that reads "There shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund, by the attorney of the party concerned or where no attorney is employed, by the party, the fees paid in Part A of the Schedule" was meant to dispense the services of an attorney. 106. The Complainant also contends that the repeal of RuleJL -='tt-u: existence of express provisions in the Fourth Sch�f�-• jurisdiction or residual discretion to the Supreme Coui,tl Page 24 of 45 3 and the herent ii! 3 n African Comm'�!,i � 31 Bijilo An Phone: < Rights Em �� ambia 1 05 04 - nion.org https:/achpr.au.inuO 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