Previous 15 / 64 Next

., , . '~ " .... .... ,. ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Ri~Jhts 62. The Commission ,,_ . Human Rights our Collective Responsibility observes that the requirements of Article 56(2) have been well , , articulated in its decision in Kevin Mwanga Gunme et al v. Cameroon" as cited by , the Complainants. Based on this decision and the submissions of the Complainants, the Commission notes that the present Combunication is brought against the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), aI State Party to the African Charter by the , . Complainants I who are nationals ' of Ethiopia; the Communication before the in 2011, after Commission is brought in respect of alle;bd Ethiopia had ratified the African Charter; and. violations of rights protected by the Africaj C,b,i;l~te,!. . I. (',:l,",' ,.,'i·'" that the Complainants have satisfied Art,ic1~"56(2)' Q_#tl~e ,,'<..., :'.;r~;)~" 63. Regarding Article 56(5), a Complai obvious that the procedure Y prolong~,(r Therefore is;f:U'. " Complainants ~:~:<?;'>.::i nt s~~~:~~.ex~~yst local " I " .,". herein to prq~ide sufHe .,'fitt: reason"(s)\:tP,support their allegation that ~(:';;:J>- ..,:~}9'. ... ,'.' .-\, they have complied witI-pfh~(§~;,dtequir,~:tl 64. The Complainants sub~it th~~ 1 .;f~ / ~~ 'v . -. . en-dsta ,finciple that the provisions of Article 56(5) should be interpreted ',,"\1 peoples' rights \~~ stipulated in the Ch w;~,~;:,;;>and that for domestic remedies to be '" . ,', ":j'J'lv exhausted, they hase to be "available, ef£~efive and sufficient."8 That the Commission ,.' I 'c." > .\ ~r~ " .~ ...... '" 6/03 (2009):~ar~.;~r:;:<)i>':':: ;~/:! ~ &.r 61/91 & 96/'93;'&;98193 & 164/97:& 196/97 & 210/98, Malawi African Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sqrr D ,:.Xpl{,,interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and RADDHO, CollectiJ des veuves et ayants-Droit, Association maurita~i~lJne des4,foits((i Qml1z.~,v. Mauritania, par. 85. The communication conc~:~e9;~ilegatio', ';'egovernment, after it took power in a coup d'etat in 1984, was marginalising Black Ma.'qrifanian ethni ups. The Commission ~ddressed the requirement that local remedies must be exhausted and '~eld that the requirement should not be applied literally as it is sometimes "neither practicable nor desirable" for the complainants or the victims to pursue such internal channels of remedy in every case of a violation of human rights. \)1r",/.,r, I 8 Communication no. 284/o,~;7Zi;nbab'We Lawyers for Human Rights Associated Newspapers oJZimbabwe v. Zimbabwe, par. 101 - 102. The communication'iconcerned the implementation of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). The Commission, in paragraph 101 outlined the respective , burdens on the claimant arid respondent in showing 'exhaustion of local remedies': 'If a Complainant wishes to argue ithat a particular remedy does not have to be exhausted because it is unavailable, ineffective or insufficient, the procedure is as follows: the Complainant states that-the remedy did not have to be exhausted because it is I o~ HlJ.M4N ineffective (or unavailable or insufficient) - this does not yet have to be proven; the Respondent:S(ctt'e$.llstEtRe'O'''I;<\Ia .0 show that the remedy is availa,ble, effective and., sufficien.t; and if tfte Respondent State is ablp4t'~tablish.thiSL\ ~o . 1'1 ~ e': then the Complainant must either demonstrate that he or she did exhaust the remedy, or th~~COU~d no)~a-~~ ~ been effective in the specific case, even if it rnav be effective in general.'; Communication O.,.~250 '(0.2'.IfJesb~t~n.Ze07Jeld a'f1 J , . ,.... n \\.. \{Y:~6~ W 7J Mussie Ephrem v. Eritrea, par. 36 - 37. The communication concerned the alleged illegal 2 2 . ">,,,",' . ;; Ci arrest of 11 former Eritrean government officials in Asmara, Eritr+ on 18 and 19 September.' ~l>I~~ v~li:}tiSJ.Qf~f ,f 6 ACHPR, Co~" ,. " 7 Communicatio i"~ 4- 0() J 14 i P age "'w"" Afric;an(;ci\}lj UnJon\;.~&.- -- '. '.. . .. -... . , : . I The African commis~.~~~~~~~~~f!:;i~e,:~ 31 Bijilo Annex L~I!l..k~6Jt!~0.)~P~.fti~ct, West bbl:rst:R.... egiei"("Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 0504 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https.rachpr.au.lnt/O 0 fill

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 461/13 - Eskinder Nega Fenta and Reyoot Alemu (Represented by Media Legal Defence Initiative and Freedom Now) v. Ethiopia

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Detention Facilities/Conditions
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Health
Women in prison

Case Head Notes: The First Complainant was arrested on suspicion of terrorism, five days after publishing an online column that criticized the Respondent State's 2009 Proclamation on Anti-Terrorism. The Second Complainant, despite having their sentence reduced from 14 years to five years, had the charge of participation in a terrorist organization upheld against her by the Cassation Division of the Federal Supreme Court. She also states that she was forced to return to prison, after undergoing an operation to remove tumours, during which time she experienced significant pain and discomfort. The Complainants assert that the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, and its subsequent implementation have resulted in a significant number of prosecutions of dissenting voices in the Respondent State and that this constitutes a serious or massive violation of human rights, both dejure and defacto. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because the Second Complainant was not promptly informed of the reason for her arrest, she was not promptly brought before a court of law, she was denied access to a lawyer from the time of her arrest to her preliminary hearing and, when she had access to lawyers, she was not permitted to hold private meetings with them. The Commission further found that Article 7 was violated because negative publicity regarding her guilt, prior to the conclusion of her trial, compromised her right to be presumed innocent, and because, for a number of the charges, she was required to prove her innocence rather than the Court being required to prove her guilt beyond a resaonsable doubt. Additionally, the Commission stated that the negative pre-trial campaign, and a statement by the Prime Minister to Parliament either did, or could have, influenced the proceedings to the detriment of the Second Complainant, and violated her right to an indepedent and impartial proceeding. The Commission found a violation of Article 9 stating that it is the responsibility of the Respondent State, and its officials and agents, to ensure that freedom of expression is respected and protected. As government officials, directly and indirectly, sent the Second Complainant death threats, contributed to the closure of her magazine, and intimidated her to stop writing articles, the Second Complainant's right to freedom of expression was violated by the Respondent State. Additionally, the Commission noted that the broad language of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation is suceptible to arbitrary application, and affirmed that, in the present case, it did not provide a legitimate basis for restricting the Second Complainant's freedom of expression. The Commission found a violation of Article 16 as, on account of poor sanitary conditions, it did not provide the Second Complainant with conditions of detention consistent with human dignity and the highest attainable standard of health. Further, the Respondent State failed to take measures to ensure adequate and timely medical treatment, including, access to essential drugs, trained medical personnel, preventitive measures against diseases, and recognition of her specific health needs as a woman. The Commission also cited the Respondent State's non-response to the Provisional Measures that were issued to prevent irreparable harm to the Second Complainant. The Commission requested the Respondent State to pay suitable compensation to the Second Complainant (including loss of earnings and compensation for extended pain and suffering), to declare that the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation is not line with the Respondent State's obligations under international law and to amend it accordingly, and to inform the Commission of the measures being taken to implement the decision.

Country

Ethiopia

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Aug 2, 2022

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 16: Right to Health

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 16: Right to Health

Duration of Procedure

Nov 12, 2013 ~ Aug 2, 2022

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.145000000000001

Longitude: 40.489673

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Eskinder Nega Fenta & Reyoot Alemu (Represented by Media Legal Defence Initiative and Freedom Now) v Ethiopia.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 461/13 - Eskinder Nega Fenta and Reyoot Alemu (Represented by Media Legal Defence Initiative and Freedom Now) v. Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Notifications