Previous 12 / 63 Next

ti H ~ ACHPR "::) " m:r.u.D e African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility the submission by the Complainants. The Commission remains guided by its positions in the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Republic of Angola and the analogous decisions of the Commission cited in paragraph 40 (above). Complainants' Submissions 55. In a nutshell, the Complainants submitted that the Respondent State violated the rights under the Charter in Article 2 (the right to freedom from discrimination) and Article 18(3) (elimination of discrimination against women); Article 5 (prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment); Article 26 (right to eguality before the law . , "* and equal protection of the law); and Article 3 (duty to guarantee the independence of the courts). 56. The Complainants, further analysed the violation of Xrticles 9 ahtf:11, showing that the Respondent State in arresting, detaining and subjecting the victims to torture and other ill-treatment did violate their right to freedom of opinion, and freedom of assembly, before finally analysing how all constituted the breach of the State's obligation in Article 1 (obligations of member states). On Alleged violation of Article 2 and Article 18(3) 57. The Complainants submitted that the victims were subjected to violence, based on their sex, political opinion, and subjected to gender stereotypes. They also submitted that the State failed to adequately investigate their claims of violence and prosecute the perpetrators, something that constituted secondary victimization. 58. Substantiating these, the Complainants submitted that the State must ensure that individuals enjoy identified rights and freedoms under the African Charter without distinction based on sex or gender among others. Citing provisions of international and regional human rights instruments." the Complainants submitted that the nature of obligation attracted to the principle of non-discrimination is both positive and negative and is widely accepted internationally. 59. The Complainants cited the Commission in Kenneth Good v Republic of Botsuuma.l? approving the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol), that the principle of non-discrimination arises when: a) equal cases are treated differently; b) a difference in treatment does not have an objective and lllPage

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 424/12 - Samira Ibrahim Mohamed Mahmoud and Rasha Ali Abdel-Rahman (Represented by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights) v. The Arabic Republic of Egypt

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
Sexual Offences
Torture and Ill Treatment
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The complainants were arrested after they participated in a sit-in protest. Along with other detainees they were then transported to a military prison where they were subjected to beatings, abuse, electrocution, forced genital examination, and other forms of humiliating treatment. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, and cited the sexual nature of the violations against the complainants, noting that the victims were exclusively women, and that the violations were perpetrated on the women because of their gender. Specifically, they stated that the "virginity test", can only be directed at women, and stated that the accusations of prostitution, and other verbal slurs further demonstrated gender-based discrimination. Consequently, the Commission also found a violation of 18(3) because the violence was gender-specific and discriminatory. The Commission also found a violation of Article 5, and stated that the genital examination the Complainants were subjected to amounted to torture, and that the virginity testing was humiliating, degrading and torturous treatment. The Commission also affirmed that sexual violence and rape are a distinct form of torture. The Commission found a violation of Article 26 because the Egyptian military courts, where the complainants were tried, did not satisfy the requirements of impartiality and independence. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 because they observed that the Complainants were treated differently than people who were tried at a civilian court, and therefore they did not benefit from the equal protection of the law. The Commission found violations of Articles 9 and 11, stating that a reasonable inference would suggest that the authorities measures (arrest, detention, and subsequent ill-treatment), were designed to punish, intimidate and discourage the victims from exercising their freedom of expression and assembly. The Commission states that these measures were unnecessary to preserve national security, and disproportionate, and, therefore, a violation of Articles 9 and 11. On account of the existence of other violations of the African Charter, the Commission also found that Article 1 had been violated. The Commission urged the Respondent State to prosecute the perpetrators of the sexual violations, to reform the military prison procedures, and to ensure that the civil courts have exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate allegations of violations by military personnel against civilians. They also requested the state to financially compensate the victims and urged the state to report on the measures taken to implement the decision.

Country

Egypt

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 18.3: Protection of Rights of Women and Children
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 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 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 18.3: Protection of Rights of Women and Children
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 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Duration of Procedure

Sep 11, 2012 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 26.820553

Longitude: 30.802498

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Egypt

Primary Documents

Samira Ibrahim Mahmoud and Rasha Ali.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 424/12 - Samira Ibrahim Mohamed Mahmoud and Rasha Ali Abdel-Rahman (Represented by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights) v. The Arabic Republic of Egypt

Primary Documents

Notifications