Previous 18 / 54 Next

Ibrahim c/ Soudan 24 n'etaient pas des delais raisonnables, et ce au motif que les Plaignants avaient introduit la Communication bien apres le moment qui aurait pu etre considere comme raisonnable mais n'ont egalement donne aucune raison imperieuse de la longue attente avant Ia saisine de la Commission. 67. Par contre, dans l'affaire Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa et a utres c. RDC25, la Commission a considere que le delai de trois ans pris avant sa saisine etait justifie, compte tenu des raisons avancees par Ies Plaignants, en l' occurrence, l'inaccessibilite physique des juridictions, le defaut de notification de l'arret de la Haute Cour militaire ainsi que 1� caractere serieux et massif des violations alleguees. 68. Dans la presente Communication, la Commission note que la Cour Militaire du Sud Kivu a rendu sa decision le 21 fevrier 2011. Le meme jour, les prevenus ont interjete appel devant la Haute Cour Militaire de Kinshasa contre le jugement qui les a condarnnes in solidum avec l'Etat congolais a reparer pecuniairement le prejudice subi par les victimes. 69. La Commission note en outre que la Haute Cour militaire a programme des audiences publiques aux cours desquelles l'affaire a toujours ete remise sine die, notamment les 29 juillet 2015, 19 et 26 aout 2015, dont la derniere en date est celle du 24 fevrier 2016. 70. La Commission considere cette derniere comme la date a laquelle devrait commencer a courir le delai de sa saisine. Elle note que les Plaignants ont introduit leur Plainte le 4 octobre 2016, soit 7 mois apres la derniere action inscrite dans le cadre de presente Communication. Conformement a sa jurisprudence26, la Commission constate que ce delai de saisine est raisonnable et que la condition sous examen est remplie. 71. Enfin, aux termes des dispositions de l'article 56(7), la Communication ne doit pas concerner des questions qui ont ete reglees conformement aux principes de la Charte 24 Communication 386/10 - Dr Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim (represente par REDRESS) c/Soudan (2013) CADHP, para 77. 25 Communication 393/10- Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa et autres c. Republique Democratique du Congo (2016) CADHP para 61 - 68 ; Communication 307/05 - Chinhamo c. Zimbabwe (2007) CADHP para 89 et Communication 308/05, op. cit., para 108-109. 26 Communication 97/93, op. cit. para 6. ,., 17

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 686/18 - Association des Femmes Avocates Défenseurs des Droits Humains, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa & Equality Now v. DRC

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Damages and Compensation
Maputo Protocol
Military Offences
Personal Liberty
Rape
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Health
Right to Property
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
Sexual Offences
Theft
Torture and Ill Treatment
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The Complainants state that, in January 2011, two soldiers went to a bar in Fizi Territory and that one of the soldiers (Kifaru) wanted to flirt with a girl at the bar, and asked a civilian at the bar to bring the girl to him. The civilian refused. Kifaru had no problem with the refusal. However, the other soldier (Petro), who was intoxicated, took offense and shot the civilian at point-blank range. The other civilians at the bar rushed at the soldiers and beat them severely. After being informed of the situation, the military second-in-command of the sector (Kibibi) returned to the site of the events with a number of other soldiers and directed a military operation against civilians living in the area. During the operation, numerous human rights violations occurred, including gang rapes of women, extortion, malicious destruction, beatings against targeted individuals, and looting of shops. Civil society organizations reported the matter and, in February 2011, the military court sentenced 9 of the soldiers, and ordered the perpetrators and the Respondent State to pay damages. The convicted soldiers appealed to the High Military Court in Kinshasa. The victims were unable to attend the hearing, as they did not receive state assistance for transportation to the Court (which was about 2000 km away from their residences), and that they also were unable to pay for their lawyers travel, which meant that the victims never had a chance to appear before the High Military Court. The victims' lawyer, who was eventually able to attend the court in 2016, stated that the case had been postponed indefinitely, with several delay tactics used. Consequently, it had never been decided on the merits, and the victims received no compensation for the harm caused to them by the Congolese forces. The Commission found a violation of Article 7, stating that the waiting period for the victims was unreasonable, violating the right to a remedy. Stating that it was clear that physical and psychological violence were inflicted on the victims, and that the acts of the soldiers were intentional, and clearly done to punish the victims for their role in Pedro's beating, the Commission found a violation of Article 5 of the Charter and Article 3(1) of the Maputo Protocol. The Commission also reaffirmed that acts of sexual and gender-based violence are a form of torture and ill-treatment. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that the arrests that the victims were subjected to did not comply with the law as, not only were they carried out in the victims' homes and in the bush, but they were accompanied by acts of rape and human rights violations. The Commission found a violation of Article 4(1) of the Maputo Protocol stating that the gang rapes that occurred constituted a violation of the victims physical integrity. The Commission found a violation of Article 14 stating that the destruction of houses, shops and other property, theft, extortion of phones, malicious destruction and damage to property, and the appropriation of property, all obstructed the victims' right to property. Noting that the destruction of houses, violated the right to housing, the Commission also found a violation of Article 16 of the Maputo Protocol because, regardless of whether the victims were under a roof or not, they could not live in peace. The Commission found a violation of Article 19 of the Maputo Protocol stating that the attacks by the military destroyed productive resources that belonged to the victims. The Commission found a violation of Article 16 stating that subjection to torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment constitutes an unjustified interference with the right to health. The Commission particularly noted that the gang rapes that were perpetrated in the presence of women's husbands and children left victims with physical and psychological scars. They further note that the Respondent State did nothing to prevent or mitigate the impact on the victims' physical and mental health. The Commission found a violation of Article 1 stating that a violation of a provision of the Charter implies a violation of Article 1 of the Charter. The Commission requested the Respondent State to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of the violations within six months, and to ensure the immediate execution of the judgment of the High Military Court once it is rendered. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to identify the victims of the abuses committed by the military and grant them the necessary monetary compensation in accordance with national procedures, to offer free and effective medical, psychological, and psychiatric support, through specialized public health institutions, to the victims who request it, to include a module on human rights, with a particular focus on women's rights, in the training for military personnel, magistrates, and law enforcement officers, to present a public apology to the victims, to publish the decision in an official government journal, and to report back to the Commission regarding the measures taken to implement the Commission's recommendations.

Country

Democratic Republic of Congo

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 7, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 15: Right to Work
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Duration of Procedure

Oct 4, 2016 ~ Mar 7, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -4.038333

Longitude: 21.758664

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Democratic Republic of the Congo

Primary Documents

Association des Femmes Avocates Defenseurs des Droits Humains, IHRDA & Equality Now v DRC.pdf
French
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 686/18 - Association des Femmes Avocates Défenseurs des Droits Humains, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa & Equality Now v. DRC

Primary Documents

Notifications