Previous 27 / 46 Next

{""r,, ACHPR � · African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights au:no · � Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Assistance Group, Lawyers 1 Committee for Human Rights, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l 1 Homme, Les Temoins de Jehovah v. DRC. 20 This principle will be followed in the present communication . 1 13. It is understood that the facts as alleged by the Complainant are not the only consideration in determining the case. Not only they will be assessed for their own merits, which must be supported by convincing evidence, but also they will be wighted against Charter provisions and other applicable norms. As further refined in Uwimana-Nkusi & saidati Mukakibibi (represented by Media Legal Defence Initiative) v. Rwanda " the Commission must give due weight to the Complainant's allegations insofar as these have been adequately substantiated".21 In order words, the Commission will make its mind on the sole basis of the information availed to it. Commission's analysis of the merits 114. From the outset, the Commission wishes to make it clear that it is not mandated and does not concern itself with the interpretation of domestic law. Its mandate is limited to determining whether a specific legislation, decision or conduct violates any of the rights enshrined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. 115. Likewise, should a violation of any provision of the Charter be found on the basis of an analysis of the facts against the provisions of the said Charter, the Commission shall not endeavour to weigh arguments or the new evidence that the Complainant seeks to adduce before the Supreme Court and Judicial Committee in order to request a review of his conviction and ensuing disciplinary measures, which are the exact matters for domestic courts to determine. The analysis of the Commission will limit itself to determining whether the refusal by the Supreme Court and the JCPC to grant leave to appeal and entertain a matter brought before them by an individual in the circumstances of the Complainant acting on their own behalf, without the assistance of an attorney, is a violation of the provisions of the African Charter or otherwise. 2° Communications 25/89- 47/90- 56/91- 100/93 Free Legal Assistance Group, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Union Interafricaine des Droits de !'Homme, Les Temoins de Jehovah v. DRC (2017) ACHPR, aras. 40. See also Communication 292/04, 1nstilute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republi para. 34. 21 Communication 426/12 Agnes Uwimana-Nkusi & Saidati Mukakibibi (represented by Initiative) v . Rwanda (2019), ACHPR, para. 30. Page 26 of 45 African Commission on Human " ?'�.. r Afican , 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, K Union � West Co Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fa

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