Previous 46 / 63 Next

~~C"t' ACH PR "J African Commission on rJj,Hl'O¢,,: Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility means of punishing and silencing them from expressing their political opinions. Therefore, on the strength of the analysis of the statements from the Victims.lv' 189, The Commission finds that the type of violence used against the victims in detention was perpetrated based solely on their sex. In other words, the violence was genderspecific and discriminatory by extension. 190. As to the question that the Respondent State failed to protect the Victims from the violations of rights they faced, it goes without saying that the State has fallen short of its obligations under 18(3) of the African Charter. 191. The Commission considering the circumstances of the case is restating its position in Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) and INTERIGHTS v Egypt162that the concept of human rights is based on a typical recognition that every human being is equal and recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of every human being. It accordingly, holds that when women are targeted for whatever reason for the mere fact of being women and are not assured the necessary level of protection by the State in the face of violence, a range of their fundamental human rights are at stake, including their right to sexual equality. The State, therefore, must investigate such acts of violence against, whether committed by state or non-state actors and must bring the perpetrators to book. 192. In the present Communication, it is evident that the State failed in its legal obligation to protect the Victims against discrimination and take measures to thoroughly investigate, prosecute, and punish in cases where discrimination occurs by leaving the perpetrators unpunished.163 The Commission reiterates its approval of the Inter-American Commission position in Maria da Penha and lvutia Fernandes v. Brazi[164 that "Ineffective judicial action, impunity, and the inability of victims to obtain compensation provide, an example of the hick of commitment to take appropriate measures. 193. Further, noting that the effects of the violations perpetrated on the Victims were palpable physically, and even from the medical grounds (deploring that the practice for genital examination has" no scientific or clinical basis" and that there is no examination /I 161 Statements in Annexture 9, and 20 also captured in paragraphs 60 to 64 of the Submissions 162 Para 155 163 See Paragraph 164 68 of the Submission Maria da Penha v . Brazil (2001) IACHR para.57 45 I P .1 :.!. C . Afncan ,~ Union 1 https:/achpr.au.inVO 0 D

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