Previous 49 / 64 Next

I '. ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights OUf Collective Responsibility The issue is whether the denial amounts to a violation of her right to examine 158. a witness. In Bulut v Austria, the European Court on Human Rights reiterated that , I the principle of equality of arms implies that; the applicant must be "afforded a I reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a disadvantage vis-a.-vis his opponent."71The Second Complainant has confirmed that she ;. . I was allowed to lead evidence on four witnesses to show that she was a journalist but not on two others who would have expert opinioRpJl;:her journalistic work without any reasons. There is also on r,ecotd(tthat on';~!?peal to the Federal : :,:'~ -:;,,! \\~~ '~,,~,,\ ':,;th~Z~i~hcOtif{Oh,theissue, on the "'~~\~ •<~'>:~_,-(;v'~~'<.~ ~X:"v: ---,;," ':~T-'"_-.':.;~.~:'/~::> L\..I,". have l¢tu,te d the'Fir6secu tion' s ", -, ........ ,'-"';~,.,,¥if\~,;)'!;1,· 'J UJLUS.J. evidence that the Second eng~~ng i ,:'~, in:\'fhe collection . and ., "W~~,"~orksfor a terrorist organization . . ~.;, :,;-, The Commission notes that stand ;~b,r.c,lerson the issue of evaluation / ·:\~",~·8,-, Sta£~y;:Thedecision not to allow ,.:ii_. of evidence at the na . • have been made upon the the expert eviden~e.of'lll~ assessment of tl},eevidence before notes that, base~\ on the facts before court gave no reasons why it has 'f~':",:--;\ refused the testlW9ny of the two Ov.,nD1't- . However, the Federal Supreme "" Co, t has made it~·,Q,\.vll assessmentjor '\~ -, . '-: ~, facts before upholding the correctness of . ,../ the til~,r.~Q1,l:J;;t's ruling on'~,~t~:;i§$:ti~;The Co±nmission further notes that it is not within ~.;~:~, '-.~ -*{tf;!~'<~Pt;-··;·,.·,,_,,: . ' -:.: -, .-~.;?-,.. - its cOrrl'Nt:;tence:t9i"determinewhether the Federal High Court and the Federal Supreme \1{:1~_ .,<~::;P/. Court haq;:p,reperly e '"' ted the evidence before it so as to determine the relevance or otherwi~i~;~pfthe te~~~onies of the two experts since this is within the remit of the ~ . national cour't,\h~;'linewith its national laws. l"~-:' 159. In light" of the above, the Commission is of the view that the denial to examine , the two expert witnesses is not a denial ofjustice and the right to a defence within the 481 P age https.zachpr.au.int/O 4) r:I '

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 461/13 - Eskinder Nega Fenta and Reyoot Alemu (Represented by Media Legal Defence Initiative and Freedom Now) v. Ethiopia

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Detention Facilities/Conditions
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Health
Women in prison

Case Head Notes: The First Complainant was arrested on suspicion of terrorism, five days after publishing an online column that criticized the Respondent State's 2009 Proclamation on Anti-Terrorism. The Second Complainant, despite having their sentence reduced from 14 years to five years, had the charge of participation in a terrorist organization upheld against her by the Cassation Division of the Federal Supreme Court. She also states that she was forced to return to prison, after undergoing an operation to remove tumours, during which time she experienced significant pain and discomfort. The Complainants assert that the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, and its subsequent implementation have resulted in a significant number of prosecutions of dissenting voices in the Respondent State and that this constitutes a serious or massive violation of human rights, both dejure and defacto. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because the Second Complainant was not promptly informed of the reason for her arrest, she was not promptly brought before a court of law, she was denied access to a lawyer from the time of her arrest to her preliminary hearing and, when she had access to lawyers, she was not permitted to hold private meetings with them. The Commission further found that Article 7 was violated because negative publicity regarding her guilt, prior to the conclusion of her trial, compromised her right to be presumed innocent, and because, for a number of the charges, she was required to prove her innocence rather than the Court being required to prove her guilt beyond a resaonsable doubt. Additionally, the Commission stated that the negative pre-trial campaign, and a statement by the Prime Minister to Parliament either did, or could have, influenced the proceedings to the detriment of the Second Complainant, and violated her right to an indepedent and impartial proceeding. The Commission found a violation of Article 9 stating that it is the responsibility of the Respondent State, and its officials and agents, to ensure that freedom of expression is respected and protected. As government officials, directly and indirectly, sent the Second Complainant death threats, contributed to the closure of her magazine, and intimidated her to stop writing articles, the Second Complainant's right to freedom of expression was violated by the Respondent State. Additionally, the Commission noted that the broad language of the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation is suceptible to arbitrary application, and affirmed that, in the present case, it did not provide a legitimate basis for restricting the Second Complainant's freedom of expression. The Commission found a violation of Article 16 as, on account of poor sanitary conditions, it did not provide the Second Complainant with conditions of detention consistent with human dignity and the highest attainable standard of health. Further, the Respondent State failed to take measures to ensure adequate and timely medical treatment, including, access to essential drugs, trained medical personnel, preventitive measures against diseases, and recognition of her specific health needs as a woman. The Commission also cited the Respondent State's non-response to the Provisional Measures that were issued to prevent irreparable harm to the Second Complainant. The Commission requested the Respondent State to pay suitable compensation to the Second Complainant (including loss of earnings and compensation for extended pain and suffering), to declare that the 2009 Anti-Terrorism Proclamation is not line with the Respondent State's obligations under international law and to amend it accordingly, and to inform the Commission of the measures being taken to implement the decision.

Country

Ethiopia

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Aug 2, 2022

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 16: Right to Health

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 16: Right to Health

Duration of Procedure

Nov 12, 2013 ~ Aug 2, 2022

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.145000000000001

Longitude: 40.489673

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Eskinder Nega Fenta & Reyoot Alemu (Represented by Media Legal Defence Initiative and Freedom Now) v Ethiopia.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 461/13 - Eskinder Nega Fenta and Reyoot Alemu (Represented by Media Legal Defence Initiative and Freedom Now) v. Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Notifications