Previous 39 / 56 Next

AC PR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility collective security, morality and common interest."49 The Commission noted further that the justification ffr the limitation must be strictly proportionate with and absolutely necesS'ary for the advantages which follow. ' 174. The Commission notes the Respo dent State's contention that the Victim's property was compulsorily acquired in furtherance of its objectives under the Land Reform nd Resettlement Programme, to redress the inequitable distribution of Iland, access to ownership, control and utilization of agricultural lands in favour of the previously disadvantage black population. In con~ast, the C inant contends that Charleswood Estate, the disputed land ras ace ' lawful purchase of land in the post-colonial era, as such the a . ion I,.F. t odds with the legitimatepurpose of restoring land tor~~;t~~ 175. i~~ The Commission finds that de§Fit,~/,theC0,.111plain ," ~~:;!~~ a':U~~~::~im~;:1 .' ~:;,~~~~~~r:~~ h~ ce was not a beneficiary of the historical ann . . io~ oti~h8 by the British settlers; it must also be recognis~' at Stat ':re inde~q;?,:,~ntitled,inter alia, to compulsorily acquire and, 'trolty ","',i prop:erty in accordance with the legitimate reasons~~p~fscr '" ~;:in~Itic , '.. ~2),and by enforcing su~h laws as they deem-necessary fo gIven H'lXrpose.50 As such, the State in interfering witl;t:;theVictim's righ I eaceful ownership and control of the property W~$ .obligated to som ith the principle of lawfulness, and pursue a legitimate aim. tc\ h~ ,,'~',:y 176. In 0,theforegQII}"g[i:\t;;!S,the Commission's view that the policy of the Res ";1;,:, ':~;!'i,~:~~e to' expropri~te I.la~ds for its La~d R~form and Resettlem~9.rt.~:rogrq,,~~:was not disctiminatory, as the intention was to address Hl,~torical iglvalances, to serve a public interest, and the redistributida provided for by law. Th~ Respondent State embarked on a legitimate pib<:~ss of land reform aJd resettlement, and part of this process involved the expropriation of riot only the property of the Victim, but a lot of other owners whose I farms had been identified for expropriation. As such, the Commissioh does not find that the Victim was targeted because of his race, or that thk State authorized the perpetrators of the crimes committed on his proper1ty.In terms of proportionality, the Commission notes that the reform POlj'CY affected only those W~Q,WIH~~ vast portions of land, who happened to be predominantly wh~\f~~~tv~:-._ &o~ c,'i'-E. Ik~"'<;; 49 41 Communication 140/94, 141/94, 145/95 - Constituti nal Rights Project and qf@~s v I SP.orr?ng and Lonnroth v Sweden European comriSSi~n Application 7151/75; 7152175. 50 ~I0 ~o', 41' -c v. ig~e~-~· .." ara: ('~, i (;J,:'l' ' Ul ~ of Humar{ Rig~J~ (8c; cto&~~~O) '\ AU-UP-,g:,I 't ~ '. Ii. ~O' &~.) fv'<> '<> 'I ~;.,,:, ,P a~@t3..a;mpj5:x-v~S'~ "",.. Oi11MEET oE.S ~ '\..;~t:."!!.~~~;4"

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 298/05 - Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v. Zimbabwe

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Damages and Compensation
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Freedom from Discrimination
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Freedom of Opinion
Investigation
Land Expropriation
Land Rights
Participation in Government
Personal Liberty
Protection of Family and Vulnerable Groups
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Property
Torture and Ill Treatment

Case Head Notes: During a parliamentary debate, the Victim was verbally assaulted by the Minister of Justice and became so upset that he pushed the Minister of Justice to the ground. A parliamentary committee was established to try the Victim for contempt of Parliament, and the Victim was found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 12 months in prison with hard labour. The Complainant states that the trial was a continuation of a targeted campaign against the Victim, in which attacks were made on his farm and against him, his wife, and the workers on his farm. Additionally, the Complainant states that the Victim had his land confiscated by the Respondent State. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, stating that even though the perpetrators, who invaded the Victim's land, were not acting in pursuance of the government's policy, the fact that their actions were linked to the President's speech, where he singled out the victim for his political views, established a sufficient link between the actions of the Respondent State's discriminatory stance against the Victim's political views, and the harm suffered by the Victim, to constitute a violation of Article 2. The Commission found violations of Articles 3 and 5 because the Respondent State failed to investigate and try the perpetrators who assaulted the Victim and his wife. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 stating that detaining the Victim without allowing him access to a legal representative of his choice violated Article 6. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 stating that, in the Parliamentary hearing, the Chairperson exercised the dual function of being the Complainant and the adjudicator, contravening the appropriate safeguards of natural justice that should have been followed. The Commission found violations of Articles 10, 11 and 13, stating that the President's speech, which targeted the Victim because of his political association and opinion, motivated the attacks against the Victim, and therefore contravened his right to freedom of expression, association and participation in government. The Commission found a violation of Article 14 stating that, while the Respondent State may legitimately expropriate land in support of public interest, a key requirement is that there must be appropriate and timely compensation and, in the present case, the delay in compensation, and the manner in which the land was confiscated, violated Article 14. The Commission found a violation of Article 18 because the Respondent State failed to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the attack against the victim and his family, and further because it was the speech of the President that incited the attacks against the Victim. The Commission found that the Respondent State's failure to protect the Victim's Charter rights also means that Article 1 was violated. The Commission requested the Respondent State to pay fair and adequate compensation to the victim for the acquisition of his property, and the loss of his equipment and livestock, in accordance with the principles guiding expropriation of private property under international law. The Commission also requested the Respondent State to independently investigate and punish all non-State actors responsible for the attacks against the Victim and his family and to report back to the Commission on the measures taken to implement the recommendations.

Country

Zimbabwe

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 9, 2022

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 7.1: Right to be Heard
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
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

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 10.1: Freedom of association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government
ACHPR 14: Right to Property
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest

Duration of Procedure

Feb 3, 2005 ~ Mar 9, 2022

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -19.015438

Longitude: 29.154857

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Zimbabwe

Primary Documents

Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v Zimbabwe.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 298/05 - Roy Bennett (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights) v. Zimbabwe

Primary Documents

Notifications