Previous 26 / 48 Next

requirement. Furthermore, they argued that this guarantee includes the principle of procedural equality of arms, which the Commission has described as an essential aspect of the right to a fair trial.54 To support their case, the Complainant also referred to section A.2.e of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, which highlights the essential elements of a fair trial, such as having adequate time to prepare a case, presenting arguments and evidence, and being able to challenge opposing arguments or evidence. 55 114. The Complainant alleges multiple violations of the fir,s,tVictim's right to a fair trial. They submitted that procedural and substantive irregul :;ti'es.a1)g judicial biases marred the initial criminal proceedings. In that, the Compl ' t subfui;~~~dthat the Court made an incorrect judgmen~ ~bout ~e Victi.m's religious. . ,assu~~fg she w~s ~usli~ base~ on her father's religion, disregarding her upbringi . d b,f~lt)l)gChristian faith, This erroneous conclusion led to the nullificclti,Qnof !he marli~ge ~~tWee~tbe first and second victims, exceeding the Court's authorij;)< SeconcIly",they's:" .n. 'tted'ilia e Court also encroached on the jurisdiction of the P~t,~~malStat;u.~'sCourt ' victing" irst Victim of adultery. At the same time, secclIid IVictimvi'Wasacqui' eo?f the same charge, showing discrimination. Third Y'",; the Court indicted the fiiS~i Victim for the unconstitutional offense, of apostas ,. posing; tl},edeath penalty without any basis, dismissing the argum~~J~.,made b first Vi9P~'s defense team regarding the incompatibility of i:tpostasy'yYith fre ,~~eligiOtis't belief, thereby undermining the equality of arms:'" . <~"i ·'k .. 115. The Complain~n~, moreover, sub' d that the'Q~wt threatened the first Victim with immediate execution unless she rec . :ed her Christl'an faith and accepted Islam, even though the Respondent State' s Consti~tr~h.vrohibits executing pregnant women within two ears of giving birth. They submitted th~tthe Court even sent imams to pressure the firsf . ~AJ;;ttocomplying with the l1:I,tirnatum.When the first Victim refused, she was t id l~)a" and se~~te <r?~p~~.~1~punishment. 116, of the first victim's convictions on appeal, the itted'~lli~J"such irregularities of the first instance proceedings were ged nor "}~ttified in the Court of Appeal proceedings (nor in the subsequent ap als proceedings. They submitted that the Court of Appeal only revoked the first Victinl',~,~;convictions, bowing to the international community's intense diplomatic pressJre< on the Respondent State. TIle Complainants submitted that the Court of Appeal failed to uphold the first Victim's religious freedom (and thus the validity of her marriage). 117, Considering the above, they concluded that the conduct of the Respondent State's Courts fell well below the standard of the most basic tenets for the right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 7 of the African Charter. /.~. I~;;>';;,,~~D~\,. c, e', ,r~vocation y , ~T)\llt~\\ ~r ,( 0' . 0" ~~~\., X,~ c.) 54 Ibid, at para 119, 55 Citing Communication : <~~ ( ,~ ~ /5 :)-< 286/04, Dina Nom v, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 12 October 201~, Rara 186, . r,IJ ,~. c, • -: ,/. '" J - " ..... ZS''''''''''__'''' " 01::' t!/J ,<2:5 '" "'.J v~ (-,O,y4'K:r:-r,\:~\~~t. "<, ";/;lE E1 ~/ ~~ 1/!

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 471/14 - Meriam Yahia Ibrahim and three more v. Sudan

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Detention Facilities/Conditions
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Freedom from Discrimination
Freedom of Movement
Freedom of Religion
Personal Liberty
Personal security
Pregnant women / mothers (with infant) in conflict with the law
Protection of Family and Vulnerable Groups
Right to be Heard before a Competent Court
Right to Dignity
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Family
Right to Health
Right to Life
Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights
Torture and Ill Treatment
Women in prison
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The first victim, whose father was a Sudanese Muslim, and whose mother was an Ethiopian Christian, married a Christian and was consequently arrested for adultery. A charge of apostasy was also added against the first victim because her father was a Muslim, and according to Article 126 of the 1991 Criminal Code, she was prohibited from changing to another religion. The first victim was arrested with her child, and detained in prison. Upon convicting the first victim of apostasy, the Court gave her three days to recant her faith, or face the possible sentence of death. While the Court of Appeal revoked the convictions and sentences, and ordered the first victim's immediate release, in 2014, all victims (the first victim and her family) were arrested when they were about to leave the Respondent State. They were subsequently detained at a detention facility and denied access to lawyers. Following negotiations between Italy and the Respondent State, the victims left Sudan for Italy. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, stating that it is unjust to apply religious laws against individuals who do not follow that particular religion, and also because non-Muslims have the right to be judged by a secular court. They also noted that women and men experience differential treatment with respect to justifying their intermarriages. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 stating that there was no justifiable basis for the first victim's adultery conviction, particularly when her husband was not similarly found guilty for intermarriage. The Commission found a violation of Article 4, on account of the gravely inadequate and inhumane conditions in the detention facility, and additionally because the death sentence, and associated threats against the first victim were traumatic. Noting that it is a violation of Article 4 when individuals are forced to go into hiding, the Commission also stated that the Respondent State failed to protect the victims lives, despite the known threat from extremist groups, which forced the victims to leave Sudan for their safety. The Commission found a violation of Article 5 noting the physical and emotional trauma the victims experienced. Specifically, the ongoing intimidation of the victims, including demanding the first victim to change her religion or face the death penalty, and shackling the first victim for most of her detention contravened Article 5. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 because the Respondent State failed to safeguard the victims' physical well-being against maltreatement by government authorities, and private individuals, and, further, agreed with the Complainants' argument that the first victim was arrested and detained on a discriminatory basis. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because the victims were denied access to lawyers, faced discrimination based on gender, and also becuase of incorrect assumptions by the Court regarding the Court's own jurisdiction, and the victim's relgious beliefs. The Commission found a violation of Article 8, stating that incorrect assumptions regarding the first victim's faith hindered her ability to profess and practice her religion, and further noting that the criminalization of her supposed change in religion also violated Article 8. The Commission found a violation of Article 12 stating that the continued threats by third parties, which the Respondent State has failed to protect the victims from, prevents the victims from returning to Sudan safely. They note that the Respondent State's failure to protect also forced the Complainants to leave Sudan against their will, in order to protect themselves. The Commission found a violation of Article 16 because the victims were deprived of basic needs, including access to food, basic hygiene, and medical care during their incarceration. They also specifically noted that the absence of antenatal and postnatal care, and neonatal care, violated the right to heatlh. The Commission found a violation of Article 18, generally, because of the interference in the victims' family life and, specifically, because of discrimination in the first victim's right to choose a spouse. On account of the other violations, the Commission found a violation of Article 1. The Commission urged the Respondent State to take all measures to provide effective remedies, including restitution, compensation, policy reforms, public apology, and legal reforms. They also recommended a prompt and impartial investigation into the First Victims's arrest, detention, conviction and sentencing and requested the Respondent State to provide an update on implementation.

Country

Sudan

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 8, 2024

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 8: Right to Freedom of Conscience

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 12: Right to Freedom of Movement
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 8: Right to Freedom of Conscience

Duration of Procedure

Jun 2, 2014 ~ Mar 8, 2024

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 12.862807

Longitude: 30.217636

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Sudan

Primary Documents

Meriam Yahia Ibrahim and Three More v Sudan.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 471/14 - Meriam Yahia Ibrahim and three more v. Sudan

Primary Documents

Notifications