Previous 22 / 63 Next

e~'H'~,AC H P R ., African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility bitch and -slut used when referring to them, the complainant specifically stated that out of all protesters arrested and who were taken to the military prison on 10 March 2011, they were the only who were subjected to forced genital examinations together with other five, identified as unmarried.w 94. The Complainants submitted that the sexual humiliation manifesting repeated verbal abuse, electroshocks and beatings, dragging the Complainants by their headscarf, threats of beatings, electroshocks, and strip searches in full view of others, (which qualify the acts to be torturous) against them was deliberate to send a message to other women engaged in protests that they risk suffering the same fate if they engage in activities related to the protest movement. This included.f! 95. The Complainant also cited Curtis Francis Doebbler v .Sudan62 and African Commission, Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria63 and argued that the Commission does not explicitly distinguish between torture and ill-treatment in interpreting the scope of Article 5, but calls for as widely as possible interpretation to encompass the widest possible array of physical and mental abuses. They also cited Gabriel'Shumba v Zimbabuie+, and Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan,65 with the position that Article 5 is aimed at the protection of both the dignity of the human person and the physical and mental integrity of the individual subject to Article . 1 of the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UN Torture Conventionj.w . 96. The Complainants submitted that the treatment inflicted on the Victims resulted in physical injuries and psychological trauma.s? The First Victim testified that following the ill-treatment at the museum and military prison she came -out as a wreckpsychologically, physically and emotionally and that her entire body had marks from 61 See, Section 0: Analysis of Articles 2 and 18 (3) Violations on the complainant Submission on Merit See, Paragraph 124 of the Submission on Merits 62 Communication 236/00, para.37 63 Communication No. 224/98, para 71 64 Communication 288/04, para.l43 65 Communications 279/03-296/05 para.156 66 See, Paragraph 124 and the referred notes thereat. 60 ::.-.,. " AfricanI Union "I

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