Previous 44 / 46 Next

ACH PR African Commission on • Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility jurisprudence when determining compensation: (1) the duration of the proceedings - ten years in this case; (2) the significance of the resources invested in the process; and (3) reference to the laws of the concerned country in determining the 'quantum' of the compensation. 177. With regards to the quantum of the compensation, the Commission has more and more found it necessary to be more specific in determining the amount of compensation. This approach is consistent with the notion of effective remedy for it looks paradoxical to send victims to claim enforcement of their rights or remedies thereof back to the same domestic courts who denied them in the first place, which tends to place victims on a hamster wheel. 178. The Commission has also been keen to distinguish between material damage, moral damage and costs, with material damages to be determined taking into account local socio-economic conditions, while domestic conditions should not be a dominant factor in determining moral damages. It also appears that material damage such as claims related to property rights have tended to attract more substantive amounts of compensation as opposed to moral suffering and frustration caused by the length of proceedings for instance. 179. Thus, in Mbiankeu Genevieve v. Cameroon, the Commission allocated an amount of 15,391,460 CFA francs as financial compensation for the deprivation of enjoyment of the rights related to the right to property; and an amount of 5,000,000 CFA francs for non-material damages suffered as a result of the frustration and uncertainty experienced since the time the land was expropriated," 75 while it requested the payment of compensation for material damage, the amount of which shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties under the conditions stated in this decision". II II 180. Moreover, the Commission in Hossam Ezzat & Rania Enayet (represented by Egtjptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS) v The Arab Republic of Egypt, considered that "Such compensation is at large: it cannot be ascertained by a mathematical calculation. It is a matter of impression on the part of the Commission" and proceeded to award a US$10,000 (United States Dollars Ten Thousand) lump sum for all the victims. 76 z; -.:7;�-��'� 1/ ,.. � �� ":," � ,. 75 Communication 389/10-Mbiankeu Genevieve v. Cameroon (2015) ACJ-IPR para 153(ii). /({ 76 Communication 355/07 - Hossam Ezzat & Rania Enayet (represented by Egyptian Initiative for r/ JiJon I •c & INTERIGHTS) v The Arab Republic of Egypt, para. 183. Atr�n�\ UnionW Page 43 of 45 �--� '' �0 ..,/' ' e,Rf.l ,ill,, '•o 0 '� � African Commission on Human and Pe 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo West Coast Re Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (22 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a � •. ' ' \' ' O , "' rS

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