Previous 8 / 63 Next

Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 30. Par Lettre et Note verbale du 1er decembre 2015, le Secretariat a informe les parties que lors de sa 57eme Session ordinaire, tenue du 04 au 18 novembre 2015 a Banjul, en Republique de Gambie, la Commission a decide de renvoyer l'examen de la Communication a une Session ulterieure. 31. Par lettre et Note verbale du 04 mars 2016, le Secretariat a informe les parties que lors de sa 19eme Session extraordinaire tenue du 16 au 25 fevrier 2016 a Banjul, en Republique Islamique de Gambie, la Commission a decide de renvoyer sa decision sur la recevabilite a une Session ulterieure. 32. Par lettre du 27 juin 2016, le Secretariat a informe les parties que lors de sa 20eme Session extraordinaire tenue du 09 au 18 juin 2016 a Banjul, en Republique Islamique de Gambie, la Commission a decide de renvoyer sa decision sur la recevabilite a une Session ulterieure. 33. Lors de ses sessions subsequentes la Commission a renvoye l'examen de la Communication et on a informe les parties en consequence. 34. Lors de sa 24-'' session extraordinaire, qui s'est tenue du 30 juillet au 9 aout 2018, la Commission a declare la communication recevable. Cette decision a ete transmise aux parties et le plaignant a ete invite a presenter ses observations sur le fond le 17 decembre 2018. 35. A la suite d'une lettre avertissant la Commission que ses observations sur le fond n'avaient pas encore ete rec_;ues, datee du 14 mars 2019, le plaignant a presente ses observations sur le fond le 18 mars 2019, indiquant qu'il maintenait les allegations contenues dans la plainte. 36. Le 9 avril 2019, le Secretariat a transmis les observations du plaignant sur le fond a l'Etat defendeur pour qu'il y reponde dans un delai de soixante (60) jours a compter de leur reception, en informant le plaignant a la meme date. 37. Le 1er aout 2019, le Secretariat a rappele a l'Etat defendeur que le delai qui lui avait ete accorde pour presenter des observations sur le fond avait expire le 9 juin 2019 et qu'en !'absence de demande de prorogation du delai, la Commis f .. �� Union AnOr�i cittie Afriqan "w,,;i The African Commission o 31 Bijilo Annex L Phone: (220) Emai Page 7 of 62

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 474/14 - Family of the late Jean-Claude Ndimumahoro v. Burundi

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Extra-Judicial Killings
Freedom from Discrimination
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Freedom of Opinion
Functioning and Independence of the Judiciary
Participation in Government
Personal Liberty
Police Brutality and Offences
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Family
Right to Life
Torture and Ill Treatment

Case Head Notes: The first victim had a been a member of the FNL, a rebel movement that had laid down its arms in 2009 and become a political party. In 2011 the FNL was accused of an armed attack in a bar, and, following the incident, the first victim began to subjected to surveillance and began to receive death threats. In June 2012 the first victim attended a meeting with a former FNL member, who had become a police officer and the personal bodyguard of the deputy Police Commissioner of Gitega. Following the meeting, the first victim was never seen again. In July 12, a headless corpse was found, and was identified as the first victim. The complainants state that, according to witnesses, the first victim was taken away in a vehicle belonging to the Administrator of Gitega and, further, a witness testified to having been detained along with the first victim in a cell at the National Intelligence Service (SNR), and stated that they had been subjected to ill-treatment. The Commission found a violation of Article 4 stating that, since the victim was not released before his decapitated body was discovered, the decapitation is attributable to the Respondent State, and that it was an arbitrary, extrajudicial execution. The Commission found a violation of Article 5 stating that the lack of communication with the outside world, humiliating treatment, and decapitation of the first victim indicated the severity of the suffering inflicted. The Commission stated that there is no doubt that the actions were carried out by a state party for a specific purpose and, accordingly, meet the requirements to find that the first victim was tortured. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that, since there is no record of a competent authority ordering his detention, the detention of the first victim took place outside of the legal framework. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because the first victim was detained without them, or others, knowing their whereabouts and also because the detention took place outside of any criminal proceedings. The Commission found a violation of Articles 9, 10 and 13 because not only did the Respondent State fail to protect the first victim's rights, regarding freedom of opinion, freedom of association and participation in government, the Respondent State allowed its agents to behead the first victim for exercising those rights. Noting that in the past the Commission has found that incommunicado detention alone has constituted a violation of the right to family, the Commission found a violation of Article 18, stating that the Respondent State allowed its agents to execute one of the family's members, and, consequently, violated the victim and the victim's family's Article 18 rights. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, stating that the first victim was treated differently than members of other political parties, particularly members affiliated or associated with the ruling party. They also state that the first victim's detention and beheading were based on the fact the first victim belonged to a different political party, and professed a different ideology, a ground that is expressly prohibited to discriminate against under Article 2. As a consequence of other articles of the Charter being violated, the Commission also found a violation of Article 1. The Commission found no violation of Article 26 because the victim never brought the matter before the Courts. Among other recommendations, the Commission urged the Respondent State to pay reparations to the spouse and family members of the first victim for material and moral damages suffered, to open an independent, impartial, official investigation, to issue a public apology, to publicly condemn the violations, and to report to the Commission on measures taken to implement the recommendations.

Country

Burundi

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Aug 2, 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 10.1: Freedom of association
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 18.1: Protection of the family
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 7.1.a: Right to Sue for Remedy before a Competent Tribunal
ACHPR 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 10.1: Freedom of association
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 18.1: Protection of the family
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts

Duration of Procedure

Jun 9, 2014 ~ Aug 2, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -3.373056

Longitude: 29.918886

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Burundi

Primary Documents

Family of the late Jean-Claude Ndimumahoro v Burundi.pdf
French
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 474/14 - Family of the late Jean-Claude Ndimumahoro v. Burundi

Primary Documents

Notifications