Previous 32 / 54 Next

sur une tierce personne, ou pour tout autre motiffonde sur une forme de discrimination quelle qu'elle soit, lorsqu'une telle douleur ou de telles souffrances sont infligees par un agent de la Jonction pubhque ou toute autre personne agissant a titre officiel ou a son instigation ou avec son consentement expres ou tacite. Ce terme ne s'etend pas a la douleur ou aux souffrances resultant uniquement de sanctions legitimes, inhirentes a ces sanctions ou occasionnees par elles". 122.Ainsi, la Commission releve que cette definition contient trois conditions cumulatives pour pouvoir conclure a l'existence de la torture. D'abord, la torture implique !'infliction intentionnelle des graves souffrances qui peuvent etre physiques ou men tales. C est ce que le Comite des Droits. de !'Homme des Nations Unies a souligne son observation generale no 20 en interpretant !'article 7 du Pacte International relatif aux Droits Civils et Politiques qui interdit la torture et les peines ou traitements cruels inhumains ou degradants. Dans cette observation generale, le Comite a indique que cet article « concerne non seulement des actes qui provoquent chez la victime une douleur physique, mais aussi des actes qui infligent une souffrance mentale »41 Ensuite, il faut que cette infliction soit administree par un agent public ou toute personne agissant a titre officiel ou a son instigation ou avec son! consentement expres ou tacite, et enfin !'infliction doit etre faite dans un but determine. 123.Quant a la notion de « peine ou traitement cruel, inhumain ou degradant », la Commission a, dans I'affaire Media Rights c. Nigeria, souligne que « l'expression "peine ou traitement cruel, inhumain ou degradant" doit etre interpretee de maniere inclure la protection la plus large possible contre les abus, tant physiques que mentaux »42. a 124.En l'espece, des conclusions des plaignant et des temoignages a sa disposition, la Commission releve qu' effectivement des violences physiques et morales ont ete infligees aux victimes. Il s'agit notamment « des viols collectifs imposes aux femmes en presence leurs maris et en/ants, extorsions, destructions mechantes, degradations ou deteriorations des biens, des coups de crosses d'armes ou de poignard sur des personnes cibles . . . . . . » 43 . 41 Observation generate No 20 du Comite des Nations Unies pour les Droits de !'Homme adoptee au Quarante - quatrieme session (1992), para 5. 42 Communication 224/98- Media Rights c/ Nigeria (2000) CADHP para 7. 43 Voir le memoire des plaignants, para 8. 31

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