Previous 23 / 33 Next

concrete devant les instances judiciaires nationales, le manque d'independance du pouvoir judiciaire a entraine la violation des droits d'un plaignant. 112. En l'espece, la deuxieme situation ne se presente pas, puisque les victimes n'ont meme pas essaye d'epuiser les voies de recours internes. Dans la premiere situation, la Commission considere que les faits presentes par le Plaignant ne sont pas suffisants pour apprecier l'independance du pouvoir judiciaire. 113. La Commission conclut done que le droit du plaignant a ce que sa cause soit entendue par un tribunal independant n'a pas ete viole, puisqu'il n'a meme pas porte sa cause devant les tribunaux nationaux. Violation alleguee de !'article 1 4 de la Charte 114. L'article 14 de la Charte prevoit que : Le droit a la propriete est garanti et ne peut etre affecte que par la necessite publique ou dans l'interet general de la communaute, conformement aux dispositions des reglements juridiques appropries. 115. La Commission note que la notion classique du droit de la propriete confere trois (3) facultes au proprietaire, a savoir: !'usage de l'objet de la propriete (usus), sa jouissance (fructus) et le droit d'en disposer ou de s'en defaire (abusus)24 . Sur la base de cette notion classique, !'article 14 interdit l'ingerence dans la propriete d'autrui. Ceci est confirme dans l'affaire Open Society Justice Initiative c. Cameroun25 , dans laquelle la Commission part du principe que le droit a la propriete est protege par le principe de la « possession et la jouissance pacifiques de la propriete ». 116. Dans l'affaire Media Rights Agenda c. Nigeria, la Commission a renforce l'idee de protection de la propriete en estimant que "la mise sous scelles des locaux de plusieurs publications effectuee sans procedure reguliere constitue une violation de !'article 14 de la Charle". Pour sa part, la Cour africaine, dans l'affaire Ajavon c. Benin, a estime que l'Etat defendeur avait viole !'article 14 de la Charte "en empechant le plaignant d 'exercer son activite et d 'en tirer des revenus".26 117. En l'espece, la Commission note que le Plaignant allegue la destruction de l'immeuble (propriete d'autrui) et du materiel, de l'equipement et des vehicules de la RPA ainsi que la suspension des emissions de la RPA. La q uestion est de 24 Commission africaine des droits de l'homme et des peuples c. Kenya (fond) (2017) 2 AfCLR 9, § 124. Communication 290/2004 - Open Society Justice Initiative (au nom de Pius Njawe Noumeni) c. Republique du Cameroun, § 195. 26 Ajavon c. Benin (fond) (2019) 3 AfCLR 1 30 181, § 269. 25

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 587/15 - Radio Publique Africaine (represented by Maître Lambert Nigarura) v. Burundi

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Freedom of Movement
Freedom of Opinion
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Participation in Government
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Information
Right to Information / Digital Rights
Right to Property
Telecommunications Regulation

Case Head Notes: Radio Publique Africaine (RPA) is a broadcaster that began to drew the ire of the Respondent State following its live broadcasts of demonstrations against the President's third term candidacy. On the first day it broadcast the live demonstrations, in April 2015, the RPA received a visit from three government ministers, who ordered the RPA to suspend the broadcast of the demonstrations. The next day, the National Radio and Television of Burundi cut the transmitters that allowed the broadcast of private programs within the country. Two days later police and members of the Intelligence Service invaded the RPA premises again and presented a warrant for the temporary closure of the radio station. Since that time the RPA has been prohibited from broadcasting throughout the entire territory of Burundi. In May 2015 a group of soldiers, who were attempting to stage a coup in Burundi, invaded the RPA premises and demanded it to be reopened so that they could broadcast their message to the nation. The soldiers went to the RPA journalists homes and forced them to turn on the radio to broadcast their message. During the failed coup, loyalist forces attacked the RPA offices with rockets, and destroyed the offices. The Complainant states that, since that day, the hunt for RPA journalists has begun, and that RPA journalists are now scattered throughout neighbouring countries. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that the attempted coup did not prevent the Respondent State's judicial authorities from opening investigations aimed at identifying, and holding accountable the coup perpetrators, and that, accordingly, the Respondent State should also ensure that other victims of the coup can also access justice safely and assert their rights. By failing to include the alleged violations against the RPA in existing legal cases regarding the coup, and by failing to create safe conditions for the RPA and its journalists to have access to justice, the Commission found that the Respondent State violated both Article 1 and 7. On account of the undue pressure exerted by the authorities on the RPA journalists, specifically the intelligence services and the three ministers that were present on the RPA premises, the Commission found a violation of Article 9. They stated that, that form of pressure from authorities is incompatible with the principle of freedom of expression. Noting that the RPA journalists were already subjected to undue pressure from the authorities, even prior to the Coup attempt, the Commission noted that the climate created after the neutralization of the coup forced some journalists to flee the country, and other journalists to go into hiding and, therefore, the Respondent State violated the journalists rights under Article 12. The Commission found a violation of Article 13 stating that press coverage is a fundamental mechanism for enabling citizens to participate in the public affairs of their country, and that, by placing undue pressure on the RPA, the Respondent State placed an obstacle on citizens' participation in the public affairs of their country. Noting that the RPA never brought the case before the national courts, the Commission found no violation of Article 26, and stated that the facts presented were not sufficient to assess the independence of the judiciary. Regarding Article 14, the Commission stated that, given that the rocket attack on the RPA took place in the context of an attempted coup, there is no reason to consider that the destruction of the RPA was disproportionate to the objective pursued. However, the Commission also noted that the legitimate destruction of property does not prevent the government from assuming objective responsibility for the damage caused to third parties, which can be determined within the framework of an appropriate procedure at the national level. The Commission urged the Respondent State to create the necessary conditions for the safe return of RPA journalists who fled the country, and for the safe emergence from hiding of the journalists who remained in the country. The Commission requested the Respondent State to open investigations to determine the circumstances of the attack on RPA premises, and also to report back to the Commission on the measures taken to implement the decision.

Country

Burundi

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 7, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 12: Right to Freedom of Movement
ACHPR 12:2: Right to leave any country including his own, and to return to his country
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 9.1: Right to Receive Information
ACHPR 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 12: Right to Freedom of Movement
ACHPR 12.1: Right to freedom of movement and residence within borders of State of legal residence
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 14: Right to Property

Duration of Procedure

Nov 10, 2015 ~ Mar 7, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -3.373056

Longitude: 29.918886

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Burundi

Primary Documents

Radio Publique Africaine (represented by Maitre Lambert Nigarura) v Burundi.pdf
French
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 587/15 - Radio Publique Africaine (represented by Maître Lambert Nigarura) v. Burundi

Primary Documents

Notifications