Previous 42 / 56 Next

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Biqhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility -':'" evidence from the Victim and his witnesses. There were also no details of the attempts made by the State to co~~act the Victim and his witnesses, whose identities are known to the authorities. 185. The Commission is mindful that thi acts complained of by the Victim occurred in a period where it is apparent that there was a breakdown of law and order, as landless individualsl forcibly invaded farms including the property of the Victim. The facts disclose that at one incident, the police did come to the aid of the Victim butthey were overpowered by the invaders. The State in the circumstances could not prevent the crimes from occurring at the time, given the cJntext in ,i,c!},they happened. However, The ~e~ponde~t Sta.te was lunde~( uty':",~en reports were made by the Victim, to investigate and try;"pEj:l~J?,~tra .,' accused of the crimin~l acts, ~hether or not they .Jv.e~<f ,"~.onn~~~r,,-. and accordill~ly punish these ~erpetra~orsl if'!q~n~ gur!~*:~.Tne'1~e~N;o~d~nt State's failure to do so, particularly ill relation to the assa,glt on the VIctim, and viole~ce meted against ~is,,~~fe, wlIij~.~ lec!}b the n{i~~~~pfageof their unborn child, amounts to a vIOlatIon of IArtIcle'3 of the Afncan Charter. ",t';~e~~?~~;,~> ". ':"~ "\;~ .. '_ :\~.'~;" 186. The Complainant ft;lJL~h~rallege~:;;~'r#,,~t the "'4~eiEiJonof the Privileges Committee of the 4th Paili~P1~nt :was Bi~$ed, asrrriajority of its member were from ZANU PF, and '\t~~~i;'the outc9~W='of this allegedly biased hearing was a. ~isproportionafei~'sent~nce ,W'hich was discriminatory in nature. In response, the Respondent.State contends that the charge of contem...p.~.of Pad,iament was prof.,.... eri~,frJ;\ajUdicatedon and an appropriate sentence Imposed. ) , ;~'~:~::;'~~'~'~' - -, , _/~;t 187. The:~.~.~mH,l:ission note~}h~~:section ~6 read in conjunction with section 21 of tJi~~,\~ri\{g)g~SI Imm~nities and .~o~e~s Parlia~ent Act [Chapter 2:08] (Prnqleges·Act) pr,qYIdes for the junsdiction of Parliament to address contempt '~~~ldmeterout punishment which may include a term of imprisonment. Where a Member of Parliament is charged with contempt of Parliament," pursuant to section 16 ~4), Parliament sitting as a court of record shall summarily inquire into land punish the alleged offender. Hence, the Privileges Committee was I mandated to conduct an enquiry and make recommendations to PaJliament in accordance with the Privileges Act, on whether or not the ~onduct of the Victim amounted to contempt of Parliament. = II __ ~. I ~o'" ~;_1.AR;f::.rvD?$.... 188. The Commission notes that the Complainant did not ade :G:e~c.a'fl'/V?14r ';:'~o' I I <:> Y :.0 evidence to show that the Privileges Oommittee failed to follqtf'Objed~~., <~. criteria in reaching its findings agains~ the Victim. The mere ,~~t. t1(at ~~" ~ ~ IPrivileges Co~ittee constituted of ~ majority ?f. ZANU ~~ ~~b~~ cannot be sufficient grounds to hold that the VIctim was n¢.t",ai{o d&t ";)Q (/: j ~I '. \l's. '\ /0 \ ( . ,::_~~ICP-\~ Pag~"",~:;<1~ "'«; ~v tfJ N K.-V". ',f"

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