Previous 24 / 27 Next

.•· ~~~H P~. \ ACH PR \ ;., African Commission on ~ Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 94. On the allegations of the violation of Articles 2; 3 and 19, the Commission decides that there have been no violations. Alleged violation of Art icle 5 95. The First Complainant also submits that he was "treated disrespectfully by the courts which directly affected his dignity." Article 5 of the Charter provides that: Even; individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignihJ inherent in a human being and to the recognition ofhis legal status. All forms ofexploitation and degradation of man particularly slaven;, slave trade,· torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited. 96. The Commission recalls its decision in Sudanese Civilians in South Kordofan and Blue Nile (represented Sudan Democracy First Group, REDRESS, Human Rights Watch, INTERIGHTS and Enouglt Project) v Sudan that Article 5, a completely non-derog&ble right, 59 guarantees respect for the dignity inherent in the human person and the recognition of his or her legal status, and further prohibits all forms of exploitation and degradation of man or woman, including slavery, slave trade and torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment.60 97. The Commission notes at the offset that it has been established prior that the Complainants were not disrespected by the Courts and on that basis alone the claim falls.61 Furthermore, the Commission visits its findings in Civil Liberties Organization, Legal Defense Centre and Legal Defense and Assistance Project v. Nigeria reiterating that allegations of the violation of Article 5 require proof and that burden befalls the Complainants. 62 The Commission finds that there is no violation of Article 5 of the Charter. Al leged violation of Article 9 98. The Complainants aver that their rights to information in Article 9 of the Charter were violated when the SCA and Constitutional Courts of the Respondent State did not provide reasons or provided otherwise insufficient 59 Article 19 v Eritrea (2007) AHRLR 73 (ACHPR 2007) para 98 60 Communication 402/11 & 4 20/12 (2023) para 120 61 The findings on the alleged violation of Articles 7 and 26 of t he Charter above. 62 Communication 218/98 ( 2001), para. 45 24 I Page •'¥"-""' African t"t'i. Un;on\!JI The African Commission on Human and 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo West Coast Regio~ 1:1mt=i:::::=---Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Fm:.il· ~1 1~h ::.ni11l(ti)::1frir .::.-11n inn nrn

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 747/21: Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor V. The Republic of South Africa

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality Before the Law
Right to Fair Trial

Case Head Notes: The Complainants alleged that the Respondent State's courts issued adverse rulings against them because they were self-representing litigants. They also state that the Respondent State's courts issued arbitrary, and prejudicial orders, and did not give reasons for their rulings. The Complainants allege that their experience is part of a wider-scale of judicial corruption in which the courts treat self-representing litigants unfairly. The Commission found no violation of Articles 7 and 26 because it is a general, and established, legal standard in the Respondent State that a company cannot conduct a case in court, except by the appearance of counsel on its behalf. Accordingly the complainants did not experience differential treatment and their right to be heard was not infringed. Further, the Commission noted that, while the Supreme Court of Appeal did not provide a full written judgment when they dismissed the complainants application, they did provide reasons for the dismissal and that accordingly Article 7 was not violated. The Commission found no violation of Articles 2 and 3 because there was no discriminatory treatment regarding the complainants right to be heard, or right to have equal access to the courts and equal treatment by the law. The Commission stated that the Complainants were held to the same legal standards and procedures as other litigants and that they were not victims of arbitrary application of the law by judicial officers. The Commission found no violation of Articles 19 and 20 because individuals apperaing before the Commission, in their individual capacities, are not the subject of Peoples' rights. The Commission found no violation of Article 5 becuase the Complainants were not disrespected by the Courts. The Commission found no violation of Article 9 because they stated that the Complainants' allegation actually invoked Article 7, and that had already been dealth with. The Commission found no violation of Article 13 because the Complainants were not discriminated against, and it was not clear what element of the case invoked Article 13 rights.

Country

South Africa

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Nov 6, 2024

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 20 : Right to Self-Determination
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

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 20 : Right to Self-Determination
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

Duration of Procedure

Sep 23, 2019 ~ Nov 6, 2024

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -30.559482

Longitude: 22.937506

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): South Africa

Primary Documents

Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor v South Africa.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 747/21: Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor V. The Republic of South Africa

Primary Documents

Notifications