Previous 9 / 46 Next

:CHP� . AC l-1 P R African Commission on aurm" . Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 33. By Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/459/ 13/MAUR/62/14 dated 21 January 2014 the Complainant's written submissions on admissibility were transmitted to the Respondent State with a request for the latter to submit its written observations on admissibility within two months of notification. 34. By 30 March, 2014 the Respondent State had not submitted its observations on admissibility and by Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/459/13/550/14 dated 10 April 2014 the Secretariat informed the Respondent State that the deadlines had since passed and the Commission would proceed to consider the admissibility of the Communication based on the information available. 35. By Note Verbale Ref 147/ 14 dated 17 April 2014, the Respondent State requested for an extension of the time within which to submit its observations on admissibility. The Respondent State subsequently inquired about the status of its request for extension of time by Notes Verbale Refs: 18666/274(2014) dated 13 May 2014, and 18666/274 (2014) dated 9 June 2014 36. By Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/459/13/MAUR/1056/14 the Secretariat informed the Respondent State that the request for extension of time was due to be considered during the 16th Extraordinary Session held in Kigali, Rwanda from 20 to 29 July 2014. 37. By letter dated 29 June 2014 the Complainant inquired about the status of the admissibility of this Communication. 38. In response to the Complainant's inqumes, by letter Ref: ACHPR/COMM/459/13/1263/14 dated 9 July 2014 the Secretariat informed the latter that the Respondent State had requested an extension of time and the Commission was due to consider it during the 16th Extraordinary Session as above stated. 39. On 7 August 2014 by Note Verbale Ref: 296/2014 the Respondent State yet again inquired about the status of its request for extension of time. 40. By Note Verbale Ref: ACHPR/COMM/ 459/13/1454/14 dated 11 August 2014 the Secretariat informed the Respondent State that during 16 th Extraordinar the Commission had granted a one month extension of time within Page 8 of 45 Afl� 11· \ Union, I \ African Commission on Human and P 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo West Coast e 10 Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (22 � ..,·'./·/ Email: au-banjul@africa- -.}tin.0�1c1>. 1t'� ,,r.· ·, . •, ., . . . r. �<s:· /. '¼ _,__ https:/achpr.au .inti0.-0.!I" t ' ��:-:--· · ' -::.-:-,:-.-;:.. ., .. _/

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