Previous 47 / 63 Next

;}) 6.~ttEB rf;:n.'d.~ Human and Peoples' Riqhts Human R;ghts our Collective Responsibility that can prove a girl or woman has had sex", as the "appearance of girl's or woman hymen cannot prove whether they have had sexual intercourse or are sexually active or not"),l65the Commission views that the choice of the state through the Criminal-Statutes fell short of the required standards. As to the question of secondary victimization, the Commission considers and remains guided by the European Committee of Ministers in its Recommendation (also cited by the Complainants) that Secondary victimisation occurs not as a direct result of the criminal act, but through subsequent victim-blaming attitudes, behaviours and practices of State institutions responding to the complainantt= 194. 195. In the case at hand, the Commission particularly finds in the responses of institutions and individuals to the victims including many of the questions put by the authorities during their detention and trial.167 196. The Commission takes examples from questions asked to the first Victim captured in Paragraph 66 of the Complainants' Submissions on Merits and from the English translation of the testimony of Samira Ibrahim Mahmoud before the military prosecutor: -What is your social [and professional] status?, -Why did you work in a company in Cairo province 'while you don't live there and you are not married? -Why did you choose to live [in the stated address] even though it is very far from where you used to work? -What were you wearing at the time of your arrest?168 Being the questions asked to a victim of sexual violence by the prosecutor, a person she expected to be on her side, to bring her assailants to book, remains in the mystery of mockery and constitutes secondary victimization; Commission noting, UN-Eliminating Virginity Testing: An Interagency Statement. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018. Licence: CC BYNC-SA 3.0 IGO, available at http://apps.who.inl/iris/bitstream/handleI1066S/?7S4S'I/WHO-RHR-18.1S-cng.pdi?ua=1 (Last accessed on 14th April 2023) 165 166 European Committee of Ministers in its Recommendation Rec(2006)8 on assistance to crime victims, para. 1.3. See also Rebecca Campbell, What Really Happened? A Validation Study of Rape 167 See, for instance facts submitted in paragraph 66 of the Complainant submission in m 168 Ibid 461 P a g C ... Afncall' ~ Union 1 hrtps:/achpr.3u.intiO 0 a

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