Previous 8 / 46 Next

Q': ::;)·· AC H P R e 1 1 . · African Commission on Human and Peoples· Rights Uillm'- Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Alleged violations 25. From his initial seizure letter and submissions on the admissibility, the Commission reckons that the Complainant alleges violations of Articles 3, 7 and 26 of the Charter. Reliefs sought 26. The Complainant prays that if the alleged violations are established by the Commission, the Respondent State should be ordered to pay compensation in the sum of Rupees 50 million. 27. Further, in his seizure letter, the Complainant requested for and the Commission declined provisional measures staying all his cases before Mauritian courts pending the decision of the Commission in the present Communication. 28. The Complainant reiterates his request for provisional measures contending that there are now exceptional circumstances "in terms of a claim being prescribed". Procedure 29. The Communication was received by the Secretariat of the Commission (the Secretariat) on 18 September 2013, and the latter acknowledged receipt by letter Ref: ACHPR/COMM/MAUR/1136/13 dated 18 October 2013. 30. The Commission decided to be seized of the Communication during its 54th Ordinary Session held from 22 October to 5 November 2013. 31. By lettered dated 8 November 2013 the Secretariat notified the Complainant about the Commission's decision and invited him to present written submissions on admissibility within two months of notification. 32. The Complainant's written observations on admissibility were received by the Secretariat on 1 8 December 2013 and receipt was acknowledged ACHPR.COMM/459/13/ MAUR/ 61/14 dated 21 January 2014. Page 7 of 45 Afunt1t,' Union\.!>' \ African Commission on Huma 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, K West Coast Region Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr au.invO 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