Previous 9 / 27 Next

t~'ij. ACHPR /fJ. ii\ African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility ~hn11J~ or insulting and whether it has dampened the integrity of the judiciary, the Commission has to satisfy itself whether the said remark or language is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer or body and whether it is used in a manner calculated to pollute the minds of the public or any reasonable man to cast aspersions on and weaken public confidence on the administration of justice." 20 48. Having analyzed the submissions of the Complainants, the Commission has not come across any language that appears to be aimed at unduly impairing the esteem of either the Respondent State or the African Union. In light of the foregoing the Commission finds that Article 56(3) of the Charter has been complied with. Article 56 (4) of the Charter 49. Article 56(4) of the Charter states that "Communications relating to human and Peoples' Rights ... shall be considered if they are not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media" . · In shedding more light to this provision, the Commission averred that "the issue therefore should not be whether the information was gotten from the media, but whether the information is correct' and whether the complainant tried to verify the truth" 21 This interpretc,ltion from Jawara was adopted with approval in Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v. the Arab Republic of Egypt. 22 In the present Communication, the Complainants have presented evidence in the form of court documents. The Commission is of the opinion that the Complainants have not relied exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media and thus this communication satisfies the provision of Article 56(4) of the Charter. Article 56[5] of the Charter 50. Article 56(5) of the Charter states that "Communications relating to human and Peoples' Rights ... shall be considered if they are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged." The Commission requires exhaustion of local remedies where they are 'available, effective and sufficient to redress the alleged violation.' 23 An °Communication 284/03, 3 April 2009, para 91. 2 21 Communication 147/95-149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Ga mbia (The), 11 May 2000, 22 Communication 467 /14, 27 M ay 2016. 23 Communication 147/95-149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawa ra v Gambia (The), 11 M ay 2000, 9I Page Afri;n(\\ Urnon\.Y The African Commission o n H 31 Bijilo Annex L Phone: (220) 230 4 Fm.::1il · :111- h ::mii 1lln);:1frir.~-1 ininn 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