Previous 26 / 54 Next

poursuive son analyse en se basant sur les elements qui sont en sa disposition; ceci en conformite avec sa jurisprudence deja etablie. 33 Sur la competence de la Commission pour interpreter le Protocole de Maputo 99. Avant toute analyse au fond sur les allegations des plaignants, il est important pour la Commission d' etablir la portee de sa competence en vertu de la Charte. En effet, dans la presente Communication, en plusl des allegations de violation de la Charte africaine, les Plaignants invitent la Commission a constater la violation des dispositions de Protocole a la Charte afric�ine des Droits de l'Homme et des Peuples relatifs aux droits des femmes en Afrique, dit Protocole de Maputo. Il incombe done a la Commission de verifier sa competence d'h�terpretation de ce Protocole. 100. L'article 27 du Protocole de Maputo sur son interpretation indique que « la Cour africaine des droits de l'homme et des peuples est competente pour connaftre des litiges relatifs ii l'interpretation du present Protocole, decoulant de son application ou de sa mise en reuvre ». Cette disposition laisse sous-entendre �u'en cas de conflit d'interpretation du Protocole de Maputo, c'est la Cour qui est competente pour trancher. Cependant, ceci ne signifie pas que la Commission n'ebt pas competente pour interpreter cet instrument de protection des droits de la femme en Afrique. 101. En effet, par son expression « Protocole a la Charte », le Protocole de Maputo est un complement et, par consequent, fait parye integrale de la Charte Africaine. Ceci resulte meme de I' article 66 de la Charte qui prevoit I'adoption de protocoles ou accords particuliers en cas de besoin pour y completer les dispositions de la Charte ». En particulier, le Protocole de Maputo trouve sa raison d'etre ou son fondement juridique dans les dispositions de l'article i18 (3) de la Charte qui demande a tous les Etats d' eliminer toutes les formes de discrirination a I'egard des femmes et d'assurer 33 Voir Communication 155/96 - Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) and Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) c/ Nigeria (2001) CADHP para 49; Voir aussi Communication 292/04 - Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa c/ Angola (2008) CADHP para 34 et Communication 159/ 96- Union Jnterarnericaine des droits de /'Homme, Federation Internationale des Ligues des D roits de /'Homme, Rencontre Africaine des Droits de /'Homme, Organisation Nationale des Droits de /'Homme au Senegal et Association malienne des droits de l'l10mn1e c/ Republique d'Angola (1997) CADHP para 10. 25

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 686/18 - Association des Femmes Avocates Défenseurs des Droits Humains, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa & Equality Now v. DRC

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Damages and Compensation
Maputo Protocol
Military Offences
Personal Liberty
Rape
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Health
Right to Property
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
Sexual Offences
Theft
Torture and Ill Treatment
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The Complainants state that, in January 2011, two soldiers went to a bar in Fizi Territory and that one of the soldiers (Kifaru) wanted to flirt with a girl at the bar, and asked a civilian at the bar to bring the girl to him. The civilian refused. Kifaru had no problem with the refusal. However, the other soldier (Petro), who was intoxicated, took offense and shot the civilian at point-blank range. The other civilians at the bar rushed at the soldiers and beat them severely. After being informed of the situation, the military second-in-command of the sector (Kibibi) returned to the site of the events with a number of other soldiers and directed a military operation against civilians living in the area. During the operation, numerous human rights violations occurred, including gang rapes of women, extortion, malicious destruction, beatings against targeted individuals, and looting of shops. Civil society organizations reported the matter and, in February 2011, the military court sentenced 9 of the soldiers, and ordered the perpetrators and the Respondent State to pay damages. The convicted soldiers appealed to the High Military Court in Kinshasa. The victims were unable to attend the hearing, as they did not receive state assistance for transportation to the Court (which was about 2000 km away from their residences), and that they also were unable to pay for their lawyers travel, which meant that the victims never had a chance to appear before the High Military Court. The victims' lawyer, who was eventually able to attend the court in 2016, stated that the case had been postponed indefinitely, with several delay tactics used. Consequently, it had never been decided on the merits, and the victims received no compensation for the harm caused to them by the Congolese forces. The Commission found a violation of Article 7, stating that the waiting period for the victims was unreasonable, violating the right to a remedy. Stating that it was clear that physical and psychological violence were inflicted on the victims, and that the acts of the soldiers were intentional, and clearly done to punish the victims for their role in Pedro's beating, the Commission found a violation of Article 5 of the Charter and Article 3(1) of the Maputo Protocol. The Commission also reaffirmed that acts of sexual and gender-based violence are a form of torture and ill-treatment. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that the arrests that the victims were subjected to did not comply with the law as, not only were they carried out in the victims' homes and in the bush, but they were accompanied by acts of rape and human rights violations. The Commission found a violation of Article 4(1) of the Maputo Protocol stating that the gang rapes that occurred constituted a violation of the victims physical integrity. The Commission found a violation of Article 14 stating that the destruction of houses, shops and other property, theft, extortion of phones, malicious destruction and damage to property, and the appropriation of property, all obstructed the victims' right to property. Noting that the destruction of houses, violated the right to housing, the Commission also found a violation of Article 16 of the Maputo Protocol because, regardless of whether the victims were under a roof or not, they could not live in peace. The Commission found a violation of Article 19 of the Maputo Protocol stating that the attacks by the military destroyed productive resources that belonged to the victims. The Commission found a violation of Article 16 stating that subjection to torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment constitutes an unjustified interference with the right to health. The Commission particularly noted that the gang rapes that were perpetrated in the presence of women's husbands and children left victims with physical and psychological scars. They further note that the Respondent State did nothing to prevent or mitigate the impact on the victims' physical and mental health. The Commission found a violation of Article 1 stating that a violation of a provision of the Charter implies a violation of Article 1 of the Charter. The Commission requested the Respondent State to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of the violations within six months, and to ensure the immediate execution of the judgment of the High Military Court once it is rendered. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to identify the victims of the abuses committed by the military and grant them the necessary monetary compensation in accordance with national procedures, to offer free and effective medical, psychological, and psychiatric support, through specialized public health institutions, to the victims who request it, to include a module on human rights, with a particular focus on women's rights, in the training for military personnel, magistrates, and law enforcement officers, to present a public apology to the victims, to publish the decision in an official government journal, and to report back to the Commission regarding the measures taken to implement the Commission's recommendations.

Country

Democratic Republic of Congo

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 7, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 15: Right to Work
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Duration of Procedure

Oct 4, 2016 ~ Mar 7, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -4.038333

Longitude: 21.758664

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Democratic Republic of the Congo

Primary Documents

Association des Femmes Avocates Defenseurs des Droits Humains, IHRDA & Equality Now v DRC.pdf
French
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 686/18 - Association des Femmes Avocates Défenseurs des Droits Humains, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa & Equality Now v. DRC

Primary Documents

Notifications