Previous 22 / 27 Next

.('"'\ ~ ACHPR {rj ~er . m ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility lay squarely on the Complainants, without which a violation of the right may not be found.52 89. In the present case, the Commission notes that the Respondent State has not met their burden to establish discrimination, beyond alleging discrimination on the basis of dissatisfaction with the outcomes of their case. In Peter Odiwuor Ngoge v The Republic of Kenya, 53 the Commission reiterated that it may not make a finding of discrimination based on bare factual assertions that do not meet the legal threshold. Moreover, the Commission has already found that the Complainants enjoyed their rights to be heard under Article 7. It is therefore untenable considering these circumstances to concluqe.that the Complainants were victims of discrimination in violation of Article 2 of the Charter. 90. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Charter, the Commission recalls its jurisprudence in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and the Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Andrew Barclay Meldrum) v Republic of Zimbabwe20 (Meldrum) that Article 3 guarantees fair and just treatment of individuals, within the legal system of a given country, whereby every individual is equal ·before the law and guaranteed equal protection of the law. 21 Article 3(1) entitles individuals to equal application of existing laws and to have the same procedures and principles applied under the same conditions. 54 The principle that all persons are equal before the law means that existing laws must be applied in the. same manner to those subject to them and Judges and administration officials may not act arbitrarily in enforcing laws. 55 Equal protection of the law under Article 3(2) refers to the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but in particular applies to equal treatment as an element of fundamental fairness. 56 Similarly, the Complainants bear the burden to prove differential application of the law and provision of access to justice in each case. 91. The Commission notes that in HC Case 31884/2015, SCA 354/ 19, and ......-:==:::::--... CCT162/19, the Complainants w ere subjects of established law, o 52 Communication 341/07, para 147 53 Communication 432/12, Merits Decision, para 84 54 Meldrum Merits decision, para 96 55 Meldrum, Merits Decision, para 96 56 Meldrum, Merits Decision, para 100 22 I Page ;OI<.".., A0~~g(1) ~ ~,c-. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Fm:iiil· .::i11-h~ni1 ll(ri):1frir.:::.-1in inn nrn

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 747/21: Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor V. The Republic of South Africa

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality Before the Law
Right to Fair Trial

Case Head Notes: The Complainants alleged that the Respondent State's courts issued adverse rulings against them because they were self-representing litigants. They also state that the Respondent State's courts issued arbitrary, and prejudicial orders, and did not give reasons for their rulings. The Complainants allege that their experience is part of a wider-scale of judicial corruption in which the courts treat self-representing litigants unfairly. The Commission found no violation of Articles 7 and 26 because it is a general, and established, legal standard in the Respondent State that a company cannot conduct a case in court, except by the appearance of counsel on its behalf. Accordingly the complainants did not experience differential treatment and their right to be heard was not infringed. Further, the Commission noted that, while the Supreme Court of Appeal did not provide a full written judgment when they dismissed the complainants application, they did provide reasons for the dismissal and that accordingly Article 7 was not violated. The Commission found no violation of Articles 2 and 3 because there was no discriminatory treatment regarding the complainants right to be heard, or right to have equal access to the courts and equal treatment by the law. The Commission stated that the Complainants were held to the same legal standards and procedures as other litigants and that they were not victims of arbitrary application of the law by judicial officers. The Commission found no violation of Articles 19 and 20 because individuals apperaing before the Commission, in their individual capacities, are not the subject of Peoples' rights. The Commission found no violation of Article 5 becuase the Complainants were not disrespected by the Courts. The Commission found no violation of Article 9 because they stated that the Complainants' allegation actually invoked Article 7, and that had already been dealth with. The Commission found no violation of Article 13 because the Complainants were not discriminated against, and it was not clear what element of the case invoked Article 13 rights.

Country

South Africa

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Nov 6, 2024

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 20 : Right to Self-Determination
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

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 20 : Right to Self-Determination
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

Duration of Procedure

Sep 23, 2019 ~ Nov 6, 2024

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -30.559482

Longitude: 22.937506

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): South Africa

Primary Documents

Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor v South Africa.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 747/21: Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor V. The Republic of South Africa

Primary Documents

Notifications