Previous 4 / 27 Next

(; ··1~ ,J_AC H PR Q \. A h n:o:u ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 24. Following the 77th Ordinary Session, the Secretariat wrote the Respondent State again to submit its observations on Admissibility and Merits; 25. The Respondent State wrote the Secretariat requesting for an extension of 30 days to submit its observations on Admissibility and Merits 26. On the 8th February 2024, by Note Verbale ACHPR/COM/747.21/135/2024, the Secretariat informed the Respondent State of the Commission's decision to grant an extension of 30 days for the Respondent State to file its Observations on Admissibility and Merits; 27. On the 8th March 2024, the Respondent State submitted its observations on the Admissibility and Merits of the Communication. 28. On the 8 th March 2024, the Respondent State's submissions were transmitted to the Complainants 29. On Monday the 15th April 2024, the Secretariat received a Rejoinder of the Complainants and the same was transmitted to the Respondent State on the 15th April 2024. 30. On the 26 th of June 2024, the Secretariat wrote to the parties to request further information regarding the situation fiving rise to the alleged violations in accordance with Rule 116(4) of the 2020 Rules of Procedure. 31. On the 26th of June 2024, we received the Complainants' additional submissions. The same was acknowledged on the same day. 32. By Note Verbale ACHPR/COM/747.21/736/2024, the Secretariat reminded the Respondent State of its request for information transmitted on the 26 th of June 2024. 33. On the 8th of August 2024, by Note Verbale ADD18/2/ AU/ ACHPR/2/8/8/24/7109, the Respondent State transmitted its additional submissions request by the Secretariat. The Secretariat acknowledged receiptof the submissions. PRAYERS 34. The Complainants have requested the Commission for the following remedies:l. 41 Page A fri~nti,. 3) Un:on"!:-

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