Previous 11 / 48 Next

49. The Respondent State contested the admissibility of the Communication on five grounds that it fails to comply with the requirements under Article 56(1), (2), (3),(4),and (5) of the African Charter. The following paragraphs will present the Respondent State's arguments. 50. Regarding Article 56 (I), a Communication should indicate its authors even if the latter requests anonymity. The Respondent State submitted that the Communication falls short of this requirement because, in the Complainant's submission before the Commission, the first Victim is identified as "Meriam Yahia Ibrahim". In contrast, in the domestic judicial proceedings, she was identified as "Abrar Alhadi Mohammed Abdullah", the name in the official identity records kept by the Registry Uepartmentli>fthe Respondent State. 51. The second ground of the Respondent StaJe' s obj'ection to the admissibility of the Communication is that it is not in c01}loipti ~ ith Article 56 (2) of the Charter, which requires all Communications to be c ' '~atible ' the Cpg,~titutive'~cl f the African ~)~"~<b ~ Union or with the African Charter In f erance 0 is arghroe?t, the Re ,",ndentState submits that the cause of action;qf the '0 .. munic~7,pn is the"juuifial proceedings that were lawfully initiated against the first and ~ec~:md Complainants under the laws of the Respondent State and that the application of siI~hlaws, which also guarantee a free trial, is not per se a violation of the African Charter. ThlRE?s,pondentState argues that any flaw or shortcoming in applying such law is corr~ctable ti1~o.;ugh the hierarchy of the national judiciary, and international and regional m:echanisnis~do not aim to usurp national jurisdictions or substitute themselves for the courts of law of a sovereign State. ".;0;0", 'K, 52. ' . ?';;d ,~. The Respondent ~tate submitted th~t';,fheCommunication is written in disparaging or insulting language directed against it, thereby not meeting the requirement of Article 56 (3)bithe Charter, which makes the Communication inadmissible. '] 53. ' r . " J State sllbinitted t.h~(using terms such as "unjust" and "abhorrent" ascribed.::5!0th~~':J~di.ciaryof 'a;")St~t~in the Submissions on Admissibility of the Complaillants is ,defam,qtory. The Respondent State added that the phrase "the continuing r prC:it~,cti~m from attacks by extremist religious groups in the Respondent' 'i;3iit.'''''' is insu'Hirtgand irrelevant. The Respondent State further submits that the innuel),Uo that only upon the intervention of a foreign State (Italy) the Complainants w~re able to leave abroad is an attack on the sovereignty and independence of tfi~State. Therefore, according to the Respondent State, this renders the Communication inadmissible under paragraph 56 (3)of the African Charter.

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