Previous 11 / 46 Next

r, 1 6�!:j,E� p.CHPJ! ·r. (lllfff) Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 48. By a letter of even date Ref: ACHPR/COMM/459/13/MAUR/234/18, the Complainant was also informed of the Commission's decision to continue to be seized of the Communication and not transfer it to the Court. 49. At its 66th Ordinary Session held virtually from 13 July to 7 August 2020, the Commission examined the Communication and declared it admissible, deciding to defer the examination of the Communication on the merits in order to give the parties time to present their submissions on the merits. 50. By Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/ 459/13/MAUR/765/20, dated 20 October 2020, the Commission informed the Respondent State of its admissibility decision. It also informed the Respondent State that the Complainant was requested to submit his observations on the merits of the Communication within sixty (60) days from the notification or, alternatively, in.the event that it is the case, to confirm as soon as possible, and no later than sixty (60) days from the date of notification of this decision, that his submissions so far shall stand as submissions on the merits. 51. By Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/459/13/MAUR/920/22 dated 26 September 2022, the Commission informed the Respondent State that the Complainant had confirmed that his submissions in the original complaint and the responses to the Respondent State adequately address the merits of the communication and therefore stand as his submissions on the merits. The Commission also invited the Respondent State to submit its written observations on the Complainant's submissions on the merits of the above-mentioned Notice within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the notification. To date, the Commission has not received any submissions from the Respondent State on the merits of the Communication. Admissibility Complainant's submissions 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, We.st Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.intiO O a

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality
Equality Before the Law
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Right to be Heard before a Competent Court

Case Head Notes: The Complainant is a lawyer, who, in the midst of dealing with charges that were brought against him, wished to represent himself without the services of an attorney. The Respondent State denied this possibility. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 stating that the right to litigate one's own case is protected under the African Charter, and because, otherwise, those who are unable (because of financial or other reasons), or unwilling, to use the services of an attorney will be deprived of their right to be heard by the Court. The Commission also noted that the right to litigate in person is not refused to the representatives of the State, so to deny that right to the other party is unequal. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that, given that the Complainant was refused the opportunity to present his case in front of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee, the Complainant was denied the opportunity to appeal to a competent national organ, and, therefore, denied the right to have his case heard. The Commission further states that no substance would be left to the right to defence if it meant that individuals, whose rights are infringed, can only pursue justice through the services of a third party. The Commission asserted that the right to be defended by counsel of their choice is an entitlement and not a requirement. The Commission found no violation of Article 26 stating that the Complainant submitted a series of allegations which could not be sufficiently substantiated and cannot be considered as solid evidence. They also state that they do not have a reason to conclude that the Respondent State has not allowed the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of human rights, as required by Article 26 of the Charter. The Commission requested the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to ensure the reopening of the proceedings, as requested by the Complainant, and to allow him to be self-represented if he desires. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to ensure that its laws and statutes, regarding access to courts, are in line with its obligations under the Charter and to provide the Complainant with financial compensation.

Country

Mauritius

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 7.1.c: Right to Defence

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts

Duration of Procedure

Sep 18, 2013 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -20.348404

Longitude: 57.55215200000001

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Mauritius

Primary Documents

Devendranath Hurnam v Mauritius.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 459/13 - Devendranath Hurnam v. Mauritius

Primary Documents

Notifications