p.CHP.lf
( ~ f) 6~!:j,Efi
Human R,ghts ou,
Human and Peoples' Rights
Collective Responsibility
and Development in Africa v. Zimbabwe6, the Commission determines that, in order
to consider language to contain abusive or insulting vocabulary, Complainants must
have a clear reason and intent to effectively contempt the institutions of the State and
therefore humiliate its judiciary or even its political sovereignty.
62.As demonstrated above, the Commission, in setting the threshold, set the bar high,
even though it acknowledged that in certain cases, certain language, which may
appear derogatory or insulting, could simply be interpreted as the very expression of
the complainants' opinion. In the case of Eyob B. Asemie v. the Kingdom of Lesotho 7,
the Commission stated that, despite the language used, which may have been
interpreted as tarnishing the image of the institution, the Complainants merely
expressed their opinion and perception of it.
63. In order to carry out a rigorous analysis of the language used in the complaint under
consideration, a comparative exercise may be useful, as it may demonstrate the
extent to which the threshold can be breached beyond what can be considered
freedom of expression. In the case of Uhuru Kenyatta and William Rufo (represented
by Innocence Project Africa) v. Republic of KenyaB, the Complainants referred to the
institutions and the regime as "disgusting", "shampuppet", "demonisation", "fishing
expedition". These expressions can be regarded as serious accusations against the
Kenyan institutions and may, in the Commission's view, lead to the pollution of the
minds of the population.
64. In addition to the Commission, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has
an equally well-established case law on the matter. The Court based its decision on
the Commission's arguments, thus consolidating its position in both the case of
Actions pour la Protection des Oroit de /'Homme (APDH) v. Republic of Cote d'lvoire9
(application 001/2014, Judgment, 18 November 2016, para. 82) and in the case of
6 Cou,munication 294/ 04: Hum•n Rights Lawyers o/ Zimbabwe and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Andrew Barcia)' Meldrum)
v. Zimbabwe https://" w w 4ch pr.J1V/puMic/ l111cument/fil,•/Fnelish/ad1preo6 29-t 0~ r ng.pdf
7
Communicc1tion
435/ 12
B,
Eyob
Asemie
v.
the
Kingdom
of
Lesotho
hup~·//www_jlhpr.ore,/publk/Don1ment/liJ1.:o/bu~Jish /Jl ltpr l(>eos dcds -1'.\5 12 k>solho en~.pdl
8
Communication
464/ 14
Uhur,
Kenyatt,1
and
Willi<1m
Protection
des
Droil
de
Rulo
(represented
by
Innocence
Project
l'l-lomme
(APDI-I)
v
Republic
of
hllrs://www.i-u·hpr.or:r,/.~
9
Actions
Pour
In
COte
D' I
\O\>rl,Qrg/cn/ imagfs /CaSt's /lu~ l x ; \ JF:S:T 1\ PPI .ICA'TION%20001 %202014 %20 ~20A l'Dl 1%2QYJ(,20TI l!f:F.~~2l(!JR
IBEf.lPlJ.!lJB1jl.lfm ~
Rf.pd[
~
rnr~ M
u
~
~
"'
- ~
~ , <:.,,.
g'-
.ci~~ICAl~t.
~ · ··O-t,~£ O OES ~t,-S -,,
-~
.-
'{I