Previous 37 / 56 Next

AC African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Alleged violation of Article 2 of the African Charter I 165. Article 2 of the African Charter pro~ides that: Every individual shall be entitled to tfe e~joyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, I language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortuJ' birth or other status. 166. The Complainant specifically ar es that the Victim's rights with respect to Article 2 of the African Char~er has been violated on the basis of race, colour, and political opinion. As froof of thi~ all~gation, reference is made to a speech aired on ZTV, delivered by ..•...•. .•....••••.' t Mugabe I .. . '•.. at the Nyakomba Irrigation Scheme in in " the Victim's property was specifically mentioned fo~ further argues that the Victim was made ~o in paragraphs 7 to 11 above, jointly bee as his political affiliation. I 167. In response to this allegation~th~. Respo , ',ent State ga . a narrative of , " ".. I "'"1 t~e inequitable di.stribut.}~h of .lai:l,9!I,;;~here . .~lack pop~la~ion in ZImb~bwe were dIsad~al):~~~.edI~ I".¥~~~.of th ,[tes, ne~~s~Itatmg the establishment of a n w lart<;t,'Bolley; to 'a;11qyv fo, the acquisition of land from t~ose. who.,~~ . "Rredb~l~~ntlt ~hi{~~!l'imd restore to those who were histbnCall~tsadvantaged ~Pl~~~:mantly black). 168. The Respondent State argues"tthat}tFfeseizure of the Victim's farm was not discriminat6~:~t .but a lawfJ!1 adion: carried out on the basis of I ConsttmtJonal Am ent (N 17) Act of 2005. The Respondent State dissod~t ,itSelf from ,. ns of I~ho~e who allegedly invaded the Victim' J;;'fa~ih.:iii~d;,~~d assaulted h~s Fife and employees, and. submits that the 11)ya~lOnsw:%t'x;\heVera pollcr but a spontaneous reaction from landless people. It avers that this was as a result of the draft Constitution rejection demonstrations which were nbt instructed, directed or controlled » ,.~ I by the State nor' were the acts perpetuated condoned by it. 169. In Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rig~ts &' Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on Behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v. Zimbabwe, the Commission defined discrimination I as:47 " .any act which aims at distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based of. any ground such as race~cok>:tt.~~. sex, language, religion, political, or other opinion, n~~~AG~~\. social origin, property, birth or other status, and ~.~ . ~~" .!~ D (~ Communication 294/04 - Zimbabwe Lawyers for Hum an Rights & Institute for " U an igh~ Development in Africa (on Behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v. Zimbabwe para 91~ ':? '6 p.u-uf>. l ~ 0 <:{ \; c!- ~_ ~"'~ 'Q'..s:"I· P . e..tUJ,v> ~ . t: g {i- . 9 ,;; 0 G? II! <:)<i.I?0 r p.,\~'<.-.;:,q_ "~-.:: JtOMME ET o~s ~",-:;,~ Q~ ~ (/)~p..~ 47

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