Previous 40 / 48 Next

175. Interrogating the circumstances of this case, the Complainants argued that the Respondent State violated their rights to liberty and security of the person, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the African Charter. Firstly, by effecting the arrest and detention of the first Victim on a discriminatory basis. Secondly, the pre-trial detention of the first Victim, while pregnant and together with her infant son, was not a measure of last resort and was unnecessary. The offences she was accused of did not involve endangering life or material damage and did not warrant pre-trial detention. Thirdly, they claimed that the subsequent prosecution and conviction of the first Victim jeopardized her and her children's liberty and security of the person. She received severe sentences of corporal punishment and the death penalty, and she and her children were heldAn:ile' able conditions in detention "to i'''' for over five months. Additionally, she was not pernHtted to .~,ayethe prison to give birth, forcing her to give birth while shackled. Furthernlqt~";,the CoWPlainants argued that the first Victim was subjected to ., . deteri 'J~' n 'c 1 occasions, where she was cut off from communication wi :, ess to her lawyers and family. 176. In the final determination, the ,-v, •.uu that the Respondent State person under both of the ri their physical individuals, On alleged Violati 177. Article 7 of until proven guilty by a competent court; the right to be assisted by a lawyer of one's choice; . within a reasonable time by an impartial tribunal. , act or omission which did not constitute, at the time it was by law. No penalty may be prescribed if it was not prescribed was committed. The penalty is personal and concerns only the offender. 178. The Commission that Article 7 of the African Charter concerns the procedural component of the right to a fair trial. Under the Commission's Principles and Guidelines on Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, the victims have the right, among others, to legal counsel and medical examination, and to communicate with family or friends at the time of arrest,103 The guidelines also guarantee adequate time to prepare a case, present arguments and evidence, and challenge opposing arguments. In this, the Commission considers the procedural equality of arms an essential aspect of the right to'a jair trial.cfo4 / -/R ... / J 1''(- 103 , "4 < ' Principles and Guidelines of the Commission on Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003), M(2)(a)(by(G). ~u' '. 104 Mr Mamboleo M.ltundamilamba , vs The Democratic Republic ofCong~ Communication 302/05(';Pg -( (,' If2 ,~;~"': ) ~ '( { s '2, \ '," ~(.. ....: !,' • oFf.- "" 0"" '. , 0 I>oIJ·UA ~<,'~ 0,V x- '-'..si 4,./'1 .e-» I (.', UN 4"RICp.I':\ c, ,?<;,~ -"";:'D.")MF Ei o'C:' ,'~ • f' ~-:~~ o: ~9g.- I "'.--? '" .

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