Previous 41 / 50 Next

actors.66 The Commission notes that it is the responsibility of states to ensure that security forces do not use excessive force against protesters. It is also tasked with creating an environment conducive to peaceful assembly, wherein individuals can gather without fear of retaliation or harassment. Furthermore, in the case of Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al. v Cameroon, the Commission further affirms that limitations on the freedom of assembly do not relieve States of their duty to guarantee that individuals exercise this right.67 210. Therefore, the right to peaceful assembly is an inalienable right that may be limited in certain circumstances spelled out under Article 11 of the Charter, including when it is prescribed by the law and deemed necessary in a democratic society. This is also the spirit of Proclamation No. 3/1991 of Ethiopia and the Constitution. Having said this, States must strike a balance between their responsibility to ensure that any undue bureaucratic obligations do not restrict the right to organize peaceful assembly and must further ensure that freedom is enjoyed in practice. 211. The European Court stated in Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan that “[A]n interference with the exercise of freedom of peaceful assembly does not need to amount to an outright ban, whether legal or de facto, but can consist in various other measures taken by the authorities.”68 The European Court also noted that actions such as the dispersal of the assembly, the arrest of participants, or the imposition of penalties for participating in an assembly all qualify as undue restrictions. 212. Furthermore, according to the Commission’s Guidelines on Freedom of Assembly and Association, where States enact laws on freedom of assembly, those laws shall aim primarily at facilitating the enjoyment of the right.69 An assembly should be deemed peaceful if its organizers have expressed peaceful intentions and if the conduct of the assembly participants is generally peaceful.70 This was also the view of the European Court in Oya Ataman v. Turkey, where the Court stated that when assemblies are peaceful and demonstrators do not engage in any violent act, States should show “a certain degree of tolerance.” In this sense, the Commission underlines that tolerance from public authorities Communication 446/13 Jennifer Williams and Others (represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v Republic of Zimbabwe (2021) ACHPR 154. 67 n 16 above138. 68 Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, European Court, Judgment of 15 October 2015, para. 50; Gülcü v. Turkey, European Court, Judgment of 19 January 2016, para. 91. 69 FoAA, Para 66. 70 FoAA, Para 70. 66 ~ 41 ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia, Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 599/16 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Elections / Referendums
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Participation in Government
Right to Information

Case Head Notes: The complainants allege that, prior to the 2015 elections, the Respondent State violated their right to participate in public affairs. The Complainants state that civil society, opposition groups, journalists, human rights defenders, and Ethiopians generally, were unable to express opinions critical of the ruling party. The Commission ruled that there was a violation of Article 9 because there was no clear explanation provided of why the arrest of journalists was necessary to protect the public from incitement of violence and hate speech. And further, because the arrest of journalists also deprived the public of their right to information. The Commission found a violation of Article 10 because the Respondent State did not take reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure that people other than those belonging to the ruling party were free to form associations. The Commission found a violation of Article 11 because, while laws exist in the Respondent State to protect freedom of expression and assembly, measures taken by the Respondent State during the 2015 elections curtailed freedom of expression and assembly. They note that suppression of demonstrations, including use of force, and arrest and detention of people participating in such demonstrations violates Article 11. The Commission found a violation of Article 13, noting the correlation between freedom of expression, access to information and the free participation in government. They state that actions that undermine the free choice of voters amount to a violation of Article 13. They also stress that it is not sufficient for the Respondent State to have laws in place which guarantee free participation in government; the laws must be effectively implemented. On account of the other violations, the Commission also found a violation of Article 1. The Commission called on the Respondent State to continue reforming national laws, implement amended laws resulting from the 2018 political reforms, and to report, within 180 days, on the measures taken to implement the recommendations.

Country

Ethiopia

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Nov 9, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government

Duration of Procedure

Feb 4, 2016 ~ Nov 9, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.145000000000001

Longitude: 40.489673

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Robert F Kennedy Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights in Africa v the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 599/16 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Notifications