Previous 23 / 63 Next

ti"i~'\":ACH PR ~ j > ~.uxn::/. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility the electroshocks.s'' The Second Victim testified how the authorities' ill-treatment, including threats of rape, beatings and electroshocks, verbal abuse and forced nudity in front of others, left her in fear and shock.s? 97. The Complainants also added that under such circumstances the burden shifts to the Respondent State to convince the Commission that the allegations of torture raised by the Complainants are unfounded. The context of the Complainants' incommunicado detention and interrogation is such that available evidence is necessarily limited. However, the allegations of torture and ill-treatment are supported by the victim's " independent testimonies of similar ill-treatment.Zl The Complainants, therefore, submitted that the different forms of ill-treatment as outlined above singly amounted at least to ill-treatment, and taken together, to torture, contrary to Article 5 of the Charter. 98. Concerning the State's obligations to safeguard the right to dignity, the Complainants submitted that the authorities violated their right to dignity contrary to Article 5. Substantiating this the complainants cited. Purohit and Moore v The GambiaZ) with the Commission holding that exposing an individual to personal suffering and indignity violates the right to dignity that can. take many forms and will depend on the circumstance of each case.'? 99. As to what constitutes a violation of the right to dignity, the Complainants referred to Commission in Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS v Egypt,(cited above) at para 200 referring to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights position in Campbell and Cosans v UK/3 that treatment is degrading when the person concerned has undergone humiliation or debasement in the eyes of others attaining a minimum level of severity assessed regarding the circumstances of the case. And specifically, about the treatment of a sexual nature citing Iwanczuk v Poland/4where the European Court of Human Rights held that the prison's guards' verbal abuses and First Victim's video testimony (transcribed and translated). See Annex 20 Written Testimony of Second Complainant. See Annex 18 70 Ibid., para.169 71 Communication 241/01, para. 57 68 69 74 Application no. 25196/94, Judgment of 15 November 2001, para 59 221 P age Africao( \ Union 'i The African Commissio

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