Previous 33 / 63 Next

,/:~~~\ ACHPR , ~') (J,THXJ:f/ African Commission on Human and Peoples' Hiqhts Human Rights our Collective Responsibility March 9th protest and at the preliminary place of detention at the Egyptian Museum. They stated that the military prosecutor ignored such acts despite the presence of ample evidence.F! 137. The Complainants submitted further that the Military Prosecutor also failed to present to the Military Court, a record of witness statements and other evidence for the prosecution contrary to Section 214/2 of the Code of Criminal Procedures.F" They added that the military prosecutor presented inconsistent statements of the witnesses for the defence, never cross-examine them or present any witnesses for the prosecution. They stated that the four witnesses for the prosecution were presented only after the First Victim's lawyers asked the judge for permission to bring witnesses. Moreover, they added that the military prosecutor chose not to appeal the Court's acquittal of Dr El Mogy, a decision that could not be appealed by the victim as per Article 43 (bis) and 117 of the Code of Military Justice.l23 138. The Complainants also faulted the court's ruling and reasoning which considered the testimony of prosecution witnesses who were not members of the military, which contradicted the testimony of the other military members who appeared as prosecution witnesses as hearsay.P+ The Complainants questioned this judgment for what appeared that it relies on military :personnel testimonies exclusively while dismissing the only civilian testimonies available. In addition, the Complainants submitted that military judges rejected the request by the First Victim's lawyers to call the three relevant military officials of SCAF who had told the: above-mentioned witnesses that forced genital examinations were a normal cautionary procedure.l> 139. As to the Expansive Jurisdiction of the Egyptian Military Justice System to violate Article 26 of the African Charter, the complainant submitted that there is a growing international trend to reject military courts as a platform for dealing with cases involving allegations of human rights abuses by military personnel against civilians. The Complainants submitted calling for the Commission to further clarify and solidify its position on the use of military jurisdiction in cases involving human rights violations by military personnel. 121 see Annex14. 122See Annex 11 123 See, paragraph 1810f the Submission in Merit 321 P age

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