Previous 7 / 27 Next

(:i~-~\ ACH PR /4 · African Cornrn1ss1on on , • , A Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples' Rights in the Republic of South Africa have not been unduly prolonged. They submit that any delays in the present case would have been a result of the Complainants failing to observe South African procedural Law. 11 42. The Commission observes that the Respondent State does not contest any of the other grounds for admissibility as enshrined in Article 56 of the Charter.12 THE COMMISSION'S ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY 43. A Communication submitted in terms of Article 55 must satisfy the seven requirements in Article 56 of the Charter in order to be declared admissible. 44. The Commission recalls that the conditions outlined in Article 56 of the Charter are cumulative and should all be adequately fulfilled for a communication submitted in conformity with the terms of Article 55 to be admissible. Consequently, non-fulfillment of any one of these conditions is liable to render a communication inadmissible. 13 The Commission now considers the submissions of the parties in light of these requirements seriatim. Article 56(1) of the Charter 45. Article 56(1) of the Charter states that "Communications relating to Human and Peoples' Rights ... received by the Commission shall be considered if they indicate their authors even if the latter request anonymity ... " The requirement here is that complainants or authors of complaints proffer their identity14 and contact details 15 to enable the Commission to adequately process the communication through assurances of continued interest in the matter. 16 In the present case, the Communication is brought by Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden and Amour Technology Systems (Pty) Ltd (The Complainants). Liberty Fighters Network, represented by one Mr. Reyno De Beer are the Representatives. The Commission notes that there was a misunderstanding 11 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibility & Merits, para 34-35 12 Respondent State's Observations on Admissibi lity & Merits, para 36-39 13 Communication 304/2005 - FIDH & Others v Senegal {2006) ACHPR para 38 14 Communication 308/05 : Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe, 24 November 2008, para 71. 15 Communication 70/92_9: lbrahima Dioumessi, Sekou Kande, Ousmane Kaba v Guinea, 7 October 1~~~~ 11. 16 Communication 277/2003-Spilg and Mack & Ditshwanelo (on behalf of Lehlohonolo Be ~ J 0 Botswana, 12 October 2013, para 97. 71 Page vz The African Commission on Human a 31 BIj1lo Annex Layout, Ko West Coa Phone: (220) 230 4361 F F'm:::1il · :::11 t-h~nii II

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