413/12 David Mendes (represented by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria) v Angola Summary of the Complaint 1. The Complaint was received at the Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat) on 21 April 2012. The Communication is submitted by the Centre for Human Rights (CHR), University of Pretoria (the Complainant), on behalf of Mr. David Mendes (the Victim) against the Republic of Angola (the Respondent State)1 . 2. The Complainant submits that the Victim is a human rights lawyer, activist and President of the Popular Party (Partido Popular), an opposition party to the ruling Peoples' Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) Party, led by Jose Eduardo dos Santos. 3. The Complainant states that under the 2010 Constitution of Angola, the President would no longer be directly elected, as was the case under the 1992 Constitution. It notes that according to the Constitution, "The individual heading the national list of the political party or coalition of political parties which receives the most votes in general elections held under the terms of Article 142 onwards of this Constitution shall be elected President of the Republic and Head of the Executive."2 . According to the Complainant, it is in line with the 2010 Constitution of Angola that Mr. Mendes ran for President in the 2012 elections. 4. The Complainant avers that under Angolan electoral legislation, a party intending to contest the election is required to obtain a significant number of signatures in the provinces of Angola before it can be registered for the elections: 5 000 signatures in Luanda Province, and 500 signatures in each of the other 17 provinces, totalling 13, 500 signatures. 5. The Complainant submits that, Mr. Mendes has been heading M?os Livres, the leading association of lawyers, where he served as President until 30 August 2011, and later resigned so as to concentrate on his campaign for Presidency in the elections of 2012. 6. The Complainant points out that this Complaint is made with respect to the Respondent State's violations of the Victim's rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the African Charter), which occurred since the Victim announced his support for a demonstration that was planned to be held on 7 March 2011. 7. The Complainant alleges that the violations continued, in particular since he announced his candidature for the presidency in the elections and since he subsequently brought a private criminal complaint before the Attorney General's Office accusing President Eduardo dos Santos of embezzlement and corruption. 8. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent State has instigated, participated in, been complicit in, and/or allowed violations of the Victim's rights by intentionally committing, or failing to investigate credible allegations of the violation of the following unlawful acts: 1. Death threats against the Victim and his family; 2. Destroying the Victim's motor vehicles and other vehicles belonging to M?os Livres; 3. Sending an assembly of a threatening mob to the Victims' house in June 2011 accompanied by State television; 4. Falsely and maliciously accusing the Victim of seditious acts in respect of a complaint he made in relation to the alleged corruption and embezzlement of public funds by President dos Santos; 5. Destroying the Victim's car while he was in Benguela organizing political activities on 31 March 2012, and shooting the offices of M?os Livres with machine guns, in Luanda. 9. Based on the above, the Complainant seeks the urgent intervention of the African Commission on Human and People' Rights (the Commission), in order to prevent any imminent danger to the Victim's life by virtue of the death threats he has continued to receive and the attacks on his life and property. The Complainant therefore requests the Commission to adopt Provisional Measures. 10. The Complainant submits that it has received additional information confirming that the actions directed by the Respondent State or with its acquiescence against the Victim have resulted in a final determination by the Constitutional Court denying the Popular Party and its candidates, including the Victim, a place on 1

Select target paragraph3