Previous 38 / 64 Next

• I ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Ri~)hts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Rights Agenda v Nigeria, the Commission had, in expounding on the guarantees of the right to fair trial under Article 7 of the Charter observed that the right to fair trial includes, among other things, the requirement that persons who are arrested" shall be informed at the time of arrest, in a language which they understand of the reason for their I arrest and shall be informed promptly of any charges against them. The failure and/or I negligence of, the security agents who arrested I;the convicted person to comply with these requirements is therefore a violation of the right • fa fair under Article 7 of i the Charter".46 Further, Article 60 and 61 of the . I draw inspiration from international humafl.xights ,)/J :"'::' :f'~:;'l~~~j ':'>,':. principles of law. In P. Grant v. Ja1Jf/iica, " "r;~;t~! ',~;~,.,>:J,~, determining whether Article 9(2) ..6f .tn~:,~~~CP~~},~. in 'i'~::, complainant's right was violate /, . the 'ase 'hei.¢':':~~..e'·complainant only informed of the charges against him oz,idaysat ~Ihad 1je~n,getained.47 In G. Campbell v. Jamaica, it also held tha,!f:a'~" f more d0,e.~:.p6tmeet the requirements . ,;_::{~N~ '.~ =, of Article 9(2)48of the t~<;PR. .~, : .'<~<~F"'..':~., ,,~)~. 136. -,-,~_~ '; ", { Therefore, :having regard t fads pre~~. ted, the position of the law and ~! . ~ t,n,~fact that the Respond \ jurisprudence, ate is also a party to the ICCPR, and the 'f){.~\. absence of any co:rtt.ary facts or evid'~nce",;.om the Respondent State, the Commission is s\lt!~fied that a 'd~!ff~,pf76 days iq~pnreasonable and thereby finds that the Second \!jF~:~-~!~:;:~:~>:" ~(~::::.'':s::~:r'::,,~"'i"~,.' , ~... C~) Corri"8V."'.,, 's right to ;'&¢'! p~,qlXli?'tly informed of the reasons of her arrest and the \~>,> . w.o. ';~""<~\. if). . . chargesq~veHela~'c1tg(l 'i:'i'.\ 137. The Sel c;'ndComplainant alleges that she was arrested on 21 June 2011 buther first appearance in court was in September 2011 and the whole trial including the e-, ~I>-~ ~"'D Peol>. " " -<"'\)~I>-\'\'AT, ~.r. . "'~o~c.q.~~ ~ ~" Communication 224/98 Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria, para 43 . Ii! Ii f",~1,,,,~'\ O'~ ~ 47 Communication No. 597/1994, P. Grant v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 22 March 1996), inlID~ dOG.G ~~W/51/!4~(VO II), p. 212, para. 8.1. " ~ \ . .:.;J-t~!(~ if] 48 Communication No. 248/1987, G. Campbell v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 30 March 1992);, ~46, ~ara. 6.3~· !!I ~ 46 ACHPR, 37 I P age ~"".•,. AfriG8n{,~~ Un'onoi;,.J?' '\~ The African '. Commis "0 '!!.t .;:;; cl4 19n on1f;!um-an at;l,cLlJjeopl ' ?-.;,II>- '~SION p.,r . (~ts '1. . ,j. «- 31 Bijilo Annex Lay LIt,J<0mb0'f'l~_ __ ~o. <IDlstric,t, :::-0a-st;Reglon Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 0504 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org Wes https:/achpr.au.inUO 0 III

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