Previous 12 / 56 Next

ACHPR African Commission on ' Human and Peoples' ~ights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility I I 57. Article 56(2) provides that a Commu+ica~ion should be compatible with the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity (now the AU Constitutive Act) or the African Charter. The CO~ission notes that the provision is to be read conjunctively to mean that a Communication should be compatible with both the AU Constithtive Act and the African Charter. The Respondent State contends that tHe present Communication does not satisfy this condition because it shotvs no prima facie violation of the African Charter. l 58. It is also the Respondent State's argu ent that}~;~I~o~unication does not show with sufficient clarity what fights ~aye bee11:}'i}olatedand how those rights have been violated by the State>Th~. Complainant responds that the requirement is for a Comrnuriication to';' d~jnppSb:ate .that African Charter protected rights may have be~hfViol~~~5:J,bY\4,e~B.esPbnd~4tState. '1-"s<;fri~[::;\r:>, 0&" '\~;:i~~-,": '>~, . 'Y,h has helQ',fhat as used in Article 56(2) of the African Cl:\att@~~"thJ ter patible".,iri~ans to be "in compliance with": or "in., confo'r:~t% wit " r "not contrary to" or "against" the AU Constittrtive Act or~)jPll~: Chart ,.;peCommission notes that there are two pa'rts;;t~~:if\rticl~~, 516~+» of th ':"harter. The first part requires that a C9guriU;n~~atio:b."'$Q,ouldl not contradict or be contrary to the ?rinciples of t~7-/I.U Constitutiv~:'~~~'IThis si~p~y means that the claim(s) In a ~o~uru~~tl0n should not o£l~n~;rhe spirit and purp?se. of the AU Constitutive Ac,t;;::;rhesecond pa]\t reqjnres that a Communication should allege a violatiorlirg:£;,a right or rigpts rJcognized in the African Charter. In .,....,.';'. "I other\;yyords, the daifu;Jn a Comjfumidation should conform with and not 59. In a number of earlier decisions.fhe contralq,~;:;th~~~~~,ts ih~~1~~nteel~ in the Charter. 60. The Corrlipisstqn':h~~~gl~()'previously Held that Article 56(2) of the Charter k requires a ':¢9hununis¥tf~n to indicate prima facie violation of the African Charter." T'l;t~ Respondent State contends that this obligates the Complainantfo show with sufficient c]arity what violations have occurred and how thoseviolations have occurr~d. The Commission notes that the term prima facie as used in its jurisprudence does not impose an obligation to "show with sufficient clarity" the alleged violations that have triggered the submission of a complaint. InstJad, the Commission notes that it simply requires that at face value lor upon mere sighting, without requiring either p£rty to adduce any: evidence, it should be possible to I See Communication 252/2002 -Bissangou v Repubtic of Congo (2006) ACHPR; CoIJ}.~:'l. -Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) ACHPR; Communidation 246/2002 - Mouveme,.:fI~'bii'[e~ de. 4r 1 , ~ Droits rllumains (MIDH) v COte d'Ivoire(2008) AGHPR !~ "..... 9See Communication 300/2005 - Social and EconorlticRights Action Project (S: z P) N~~~ (2008) ACHPR, para38. o 8 lit, ~ 'l_ ~ I -~ t::Jl/ AU-UA 0 "~~ ',~e'1 "'0 55 ~o-<>\ < , ~,\, -g ~ ~ £!l~, ~~ tp" 0 <§=" ~'V 0, <&. (-'.:, ~ 4"'RICP.\~ ,,:--0(/., '" • ~,..:.Oil1I'VtE ET o~s\', . .~~~.~.,. '" • '/;'

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 298/05 - Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v. Zimbabwe

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Damages and Compensation
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Freedom from Discrimination
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Freedom of Opinion
Investigation
Land Expropriation
Land Rights
Participation in Government
Personal Liberty
Protection of Family and Vulnerable Groups
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Property
Torture and Ill Treatment

Case Head Notes: During a parliamentary debate, the Victim was verbally assaulted by the Minister of Justice and became so upset that he pushed the Minister of Justice to the ground. A parliamentary committee was established to try the Victim for contempt of Parliament, and the Victim was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 12 months in prison with hard labour. The Complainant states that the trial was a continuation of a targeted campaign against the Victim, in which attacks were made on his farm and against him, his wife, and the workers on his farm. Additionally, the Complainant states that the Victim had his land confiscated by the Respondent State. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, stating that even though the perpetrators, who invaded the Victim's land, were not acting in pursuance of the government's policy, the fact that their actions were linked to the President's speech, where he singled out the victim for his political views, established a sufficient link between the actions of the Respondent State's discriminatory stance against the Victim's political views, and the harm suffered by the Victim, to constitute a violation of Article 2. The Commission found violations of Articles 3 and 5 because the Respondent State failed to investigate and try the perpetrators who assaulted the Victim and his wife. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that detaining the Victim without allowing him access to a legal representative of his choice violated Article 6. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that, in the Parliamentary hearing, the Chairperson exercised the dual function of being the Complainant and the adjudicator, contravening the appropriate safeguards of natural justice that should have been followed. The Commission found violations of Articles 10, 11 and 13, stating that the President's speech, which targeted the Victim because of his political association and opinion, motivated the attacks against the Victim, and therefore contravened his right to freedom of expression, association and participation in government. The Commission found a violation of Article 14 stating that, while the Respondent State may legitimately expropriate land in support of public interest, a key requirement is that there must be appropriate and timely compensation and, in the present case, the delay in compensation, and the manner in which the land was confiscated, violated Article 14. The Commission found a violation of Article 18 because the Respondent State failed to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the attack against the victim and his family, and further because it was the speech of the President that incited the attacks against the Victim. The Commission found that the Respondent State's failure to protect the Victim's Charter rights also means that Article 1 was violated. The Commission requested the Respondent State to pay fair and adequate compensation to the victim for the acquisition of his property, and the loss of his equipment and livestock, in accordance with the principles guiding expropriation of private property under international law. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to independently investigate and punish all non-State actors responsible for the attacks against the Victim and his family and to report back to the Commission on the measures taken to implement the recommendations.

Country

Zimbabwe

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 9, 2022

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
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

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 10.1: Freedom of association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Duration of Procedure

Feb 3, 2005 ~ Mar 9, 2022

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -19.015438

Longitude: 29.154857

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Zimbabwe

Primary Documents

Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v Zimbabwe.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 298/05 - Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v. Zimbabwe

Primary Documents

Notifications