Previous 24 / 63 Next

(iH'f) !~~!jsEfi Human and Peoples' Rights Human Collective Rights our Responsibility ridicule of the Victim were considered intentional to cause the Victim's feelings of humiliation and inferiority. 100. Specifically, regarding the practice of forced gynaecological or genital examinations of women, the Complainants cited the CEDAW Committee view in the Concluding Comments against Turkey75 that forced genital examination of women, including those in custodies is such coercive, degrading, discriminatory, unsafe and constituted a violation by state authorities of the right to bodily integrity of a person and dignity of women. 101. About the use of abusive terms against them while in custody, the Complainants cited the Egtjptian Initiative for PersonaL Rights & Interights v Egypt, (cited above)76holding that such treatment which included fondling of the Complainant's breasts and other body parts and tearing off the Complainant's clothes amounted to discrimination as well as physical and emotional trauma contrary to Article 5.77 102. The Complainants submitted that in the present case, the authorities aimed specifically at degrading the Victim's dignity and intended to humiliate them. Citing multiple occasions where they were called prostitutes' and sluts' to insult them." the First Victim testified that upon her arrest, the military officers, in addition to verbally insulting her, spat on and slapped her in the face with a shoe. She added that she was forced to strip naked in full view of male soldiers, who laughed at and took photos of her with their mobile phones. The Second Victim testified that a military police officer sexually assaulted her by trying to kiss her and preventing her from leaving, saying, he had not seen his wife in 38 days"? They submitted that the forced genital examination of both Complainants took place with both Complainants lying on their backs with their legs up and in the presence and full view of male soldiers and officers.80 103. As to the failure of the Respondent State to adequately investigate and punish the perpetrators to constitutes a separate violation of Article 5 of the African Charter, the Complainants submitted that indeed the State must carry out an effective investigation, 75 Combined second and third periodic report, 13-31 January 1997, para.l72. 76 Particularly at Para 197, 201-202 77 See, paragraph 138 of the Complainant's submission on Merit Written Testimony of Second Victim transcribed in Para 140 79 See, Paragraph 140 of the Complainaint Submision on merit citing Annexture 20 78 80 Ibid Para 140 231 P age '~('"'II""'''' African( Union \

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 424/12 - Samira Ibrahim Mohamed Mahmoud and Rasha Ali Abdel-Rahman (Represented by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights) v. The Arabic Republic of Egypt

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
Sexual Offences
Torture and Ill Treatment
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The complainants were arrested after they participated in a sit-in protest. Along with other detainees they were then transported to a military prison where they were subjected to beatings, abuse, electrocution, forced genital examination, and other forms of humiliating treatment. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, and cited the sexual nature of the violations against the complainants, noting that the victims were exclusively women, and that the violations were perpetrated on the women because of their gender. Specifically, they stated that the "virginity test", can only be directed at women, and stated that the accusations of prostitution, and other verbal slurs further demonstrated gender-based discrimination. Consequently, the Commission also found a violation of 18(3) because the violence was gender-specific and discriminatory. The Commission also found a violation of Article 5, and stated that the genital examination the Complainants were subjected to amounted to torture, and that the virginity testing was humiliating, degrading and torturous treatment. The Commission also affirmed that sexual violence and rape are a distinct form of torture. The Commission found a violation of Article 26 because the Egyptian military courts, where the complainants were tried, did not satisfy the requirements of impartiality and independence. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 because they observed that the Complainants were treated differently than people who were tried at a civilian court, and therefore they did not benefit from the equal protection of the law. The Commission found violations of Articles 9 and 11, stating that a reasonable inference would suggest that the authorities measures (arrest, detention, and subsequent ill-treatment), were designed to punish, intimidate and discourage the victims from exercising their freedom of expression and assembly. The Commission states that these measures were unnecessary to preserve national security, and disproportionate, and, therefore, a violation of Articles 9 and 11. On account of the existence of other violations of the African Charter, the Commission also found that Article 1 had been violated. The Commission urged the Respondent State to prosecute the perpetrators of the sexual violations, to reform the military prison procedures, and to ensure that the civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate allegations of violations by military personnel against civilians. They also requested the state to financially compensate the victims and urged the state to report on the measures taken to implement the decision.

Country

Egypt

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 18.3: Protection of Rights of Women and Children
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
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
ACHPR 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 18.3: Protection of Rights of Women and Children
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
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
ACHPR 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Duration of Procedure

Sep 11, 2012 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 26.820553

Longitude: 30.802498

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Egypt

Primary Documents

Samira Ibrahim Mahmoud and Rasha Ali.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 424/12 - Samira Ibrahim Mohamed Mahmoud and Rasha Ali Abdel-Rahman (Represented by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights) v. The Arabic Republic of Egypt

Primary Documents

Notifications