Previous 30 / 48 Next

Secondly, the third Victim constantly fell ill with colds, fevers, and diarrhoea while in detention, but was not provided with any medical care. Thirdly, the first Victim did not receive any antenatal or postnatal medical care and was even kept in shackles while giving birth to her daughter, the fourth Victim. Additionally, the fourth Victim, who was born three weeks premature and under challenging conditions, did not receive any neonatal medical care. 130. The Complainants concluded that these violations failure on the part of the authorities to fulfill physical integrity of individuals in detention.. violations directly contradict the State's 0 . Charter to respect, protect, and fulfill the right of the right to health demonstrate a to ensure the well-being and argued that these 16 of the African Article 18(1)(2): the Right to Family Life 131. The Complainant submitted that the first Victim was d of the African Charter, to which states have both a positive .. . i.e., to assist the family in meetingits needs and interests and from abuse by its officials, organs, and third narties}:as was Republic of Bots7Vana."67 The Complainants referred the case Human Rights Organisation & Centre onI-lousing Righfs,:q . Evictio1J;5,,;lCOHRE)v. Sudan.68 in which the Commission "arbitrary or t}ril~, interfer~~~e with the family" contravenes Article 18(1). '''';" 132. Conversely, .submitted that Article 18(2), in its negative sense, requires a State to "refrain from violating the rights and interests of the family."69 The Complainants ackn()wledged thd3ituality of the Article 18 guarantee in the COHRE case, where it stated that ehS'u~ing the etion provided !pr under Article 23 of the International Covenant on Qi ansi. 'politic~ . hts requii'%~~that States parties should adopt legislative, adminis,qativ¢~or~pther m to' ring the protection of the family as also requires that State~,\refr~'ili\'fr0:rn any ;, at will affect the family unit, including arbitrary separationPof family :rn~mbers and involuntary displacement of families."?" I P~91 133. The Complainants also noted with respect to General Comment No. 19 that it is a "right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to find a family."71 Relevantly, "prosecution for adultery is contrary to international law as 'the criminalization of sexual ce . ~ 67 Communication 68 Communication i~ 313/05,26 May 2010, Para 212. 279/03-296/05,27 May 2009, ~ 213. , \/v.,:~~ 69 Citing Ke~eth. Good, Supra, at para 212. . . . . . /:\ I..)~ 70 Communication 279/03-296/05, Sudan Human RIghts Organisation & Centre on Housmg Rlg!t~~;"a~if.G'EV1cllOhs<'0",,\ (COHRE) 1). Sudan, 27 May 2009, Para 214. .:," / 7l UN H~?,an Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 19: Protection of the family, right to marri~ge anf eqf(qlinj of ':5 u~\ the spouse, 1990, Pg4, I', I ,1 -r I \. o \ . ::;1 1) (<<\ I " .,.,'·~'-~/o.J - s.:~ {\u·\I.l\ . .1. '" '/i' \':V;u C -~~. '-,~ 0'I, 29 <),.c-•: <.~ i\IAeRI( ,I\\I~ I/O J::,,? ""/ ,;~;U·;".l['E'T [ltS '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