Previous 20 / 63 Next

ri r1 6�!:tE.� ,,_cHPif ,wm1 Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Burundi, la Commission constate qu'il ne peut pas etre etabli au regard des elements fournis par les Plaignants. 74. Les Plaignants arguent qu'aucun acte d'investigation n'a en realite ete mene par les autorites judiciaires car aucune information n'a ete communique sur cela et que la famille de la victime n'a jamais ete contactee ni entendue clans le cadre de !'instruction. La Commission considere que l'Etat defendeur etait bien au courant des allegations des Plaignants et que s'il allegue le contraire13, ii aurait du apporter la preuve que des convocations ont effectivement ete envoyees. En I'absence de preuves montrant les actions minimales entreprises, notamment I' effectivite des convocations, la Commission considere qu'il y a la inefficacite des recours internes, notamment des actes d'investigations ou d'instructions menes. Du moyen des Plaignants selon lequel il est dangereux d' epuiser les voies de recours internes 75. Les plaignants soumettent qu'il est dangereux pour la famille de chercher a obtenir justice aupres de la justice burundaise, particulierement suite aux menaces a peine voilees re<;ues de la part des membres du parti au pouvoir qui s'adressaient parfois directement au grand-pere de la victime ; lui demandant d'avertir son petit-fils des risques encourus si ii continuait a etre actif au sein du parti FNL. Par ailleurs, apres le deces de la victime, des imbonakure ont empeche toutes les personnes voulant accompagner la famille clans deuil de s'approcher de la maison de la victime, cette pression et insecurite, a conduit la veuve a change de domicile car ayant peur pour sa vie et celle de ses enfants. Enfin, avant meme son deces la victime avait ete contraint de vivre clans la clandestinite du fait des menaces de morts de plus en plus pressante a son endroit. 76. Dans sa jurisprudence, la Commission a deja souligne le fait que lorsque les voies de recours s'averent dangereux pour le Plaignant, ii ne serait pas raisonnable de . �� lui demander de les epuiser. Dans l'affaire 147/ 95-149/96 Sir Dawda K::,... c/ Gambie, la Commission a indique que : 13 Voir paragraphe 58. A., C.g;,,1<itt,e Africanr,- -� Union � m ,I The African Commission on 31 Bijilo Annex La Phone: (220) 23 https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 a Page 1 9 of 62

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 474/14 - Family of the late Jean-Claude Ndimumahoro v. Burundi

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Extra-Judicial Killings
Freedom from Discrimination
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Freedom of Opinion
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Participation in Government
Personal Liberty
Police Brutality and Offences
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Family
Right to Life
Torture and Ill Treatment

Case Head Notes: The first victim had a been a member of the FNL, a rebel movement that had laid down its arms in 2009 and become a political party. In 2011 the FNL was accused of an armed attack in a bar, and, following the incident, the first victim began to subjected to surveillance and began to receive death threats. In June 2012 the first victim attended a meeting with a former FNL member, who had become a police officer and the personal bodyguard of the deputy Police Commissioner of Gitega. Following the meeting, the first victim was never seen again. In July 12, a headless corpse was found, and was identified as the first victim. The complainants state that, according to witnesses, the first victim was taken away in a vehicle belonging to the Administrator of Gitega and, further, a witness testified to having been detained along with the first victim in a cell at the National Intelligence Service (SNR), and stated that they had been subjected to ill-treatment. The Commission found a violation of Article 4 stating that, since the victim was not released before his decapitated body was discovered, the decapitation is attributable to the Respondent State, and that it was an arbitrary, extrajudicial execution. The Commission found a violation of Article 5 stating that the lack of communication with the outside world, humiliating treatment, and decapitation of the first victim indicated the severity of the suffering inflicted. The Commission stated that there is no doubt that the actions were carried out by a state party for a specific purpose and, accordingly, meet the requirements to find that the first victim was tortured. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that, since there is no record of a competent authority ordering his detention, the detention of the first victim took place outside of the legal framework. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because the first victim was detained without them, or others, knowing their whereabouts and also because the detention took place outside of any criminal proceedings. The Commission found a violation of Articles 9, 10 and 13 because not only did the Respondent State fail to protect the first victim's rights, regarding freedom of opinion, freedom of association and participation in government, the Respondent State allowed its agents to behead the first victim for exercising those rights. Noting that in the past the Commission has found that incommunicado detention alone has constituted a violation of the right to family, the Commission found a violation of Article 18, stating that the Respondent State allowed its agents to execute one of the family's members, and, consequently, violated the victim and the victim's family's Article 18 rights. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, stating that the first victim was treated differently than members of other political parties, particularly members affiliated or associated with the ruling party. They also state that the first victim's detention and beheading were based on the fact the first victim belonged to a different political party, and professed a different ideology, a ground that is expressly prohibited to discriminate against under Article 2. As a consequence of other articles of the Charter being violated, the Commission also found a violation of Article 1. The Commission found no violation of Article 26 because the victim never brought the matter before the Courts. Among other recommendations, the Commission urged the Respondent State to pay reparations to the spouse and family members of the first victim for material and moral damages suffered, to open an independent, impartial, official investigation, to issue a public apology, to publicly condemn the violations, and to report to the Commission on measures taken to implement the recommendations.

Country

Burundi

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Aug 2, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 10.1: Freedom of association
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 18.1: Protection of the family
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 10.1: Freedom of association
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 18.1: Protection of the family
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts

Duration of Procedure

Jun 9, 2014 ~ Aug 2, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -3.373056

Longitude: 29.918886

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Burundi

Primary Documents

Family of the late Jean-Claude Ndimumahoro v Burundi.pdf
French
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 474/14 - Family of the late Jean-Claude Ndimumahoro v. Burundi

Primary Documents

Notifications