Previous 51 / 63 Next

",CHP~ {:'~ '!J 6~!jE~B '(11,"'(1):'-".. Human and Peoples' Ri~lhts Human Right' 0"' Collective Responsibility the vagina of the victim by the penis, but also by any other object or by body organs used by the perpetrator. The Commission notes and agrees in particular, to the position in Miguel Castro-Castro (cited above), in which the Inter-American Court considering the circumstances of the case, agreed that finger-vaginal examination of the inmate constituted rape and torture.V? 212. The Commission is further guided by the position by the United Nations Human Rights Committee's position in General Comment No. 28, and recognizes that rape may amount to a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the provision, which is relevantly a prohibition of torture). 180 213. And Considering the circumstances involving inmates, the Commission Considerers Report by the Special Rapporteur, Mr P Kooijmans,181 and too agrees with the view that where such sexual violence is committed against women held in detention, it is a -particularly ignominious violation of the inherent dignity and right to the physical integrity of the human being and accordingly constitutes an act of torture. 214. The Commission also agrees with the observations=of the UN Special Rapporteur on Coniemporanj Forms of Slavery, Systematic rape, sexual slaven) and slavery-like practices during armed conflict! and UN Securitu Council 1 (both cited by the Complainants) that sexual violence and rape by officials can constitute a form of torture. 215. Interrogating the forced genital examination in the context of this case, from the victims' testimonies, submission and legal-medical facts available, the Commission finds no legitimate justification for the conduct of the virginity test. The test was illegal, torturous, inhuman and degrading. Taking scripts from the complainants' testimonies, it appears that the test was done in fear of what female victims might say upon their release". The Commission posse rhetoric as to whether such has any legal backup and finds negative. 1/ 216. In the end, the Commission Considers the joint statement by the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR), The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) and the World Health Organization (WHO) there that no scientific or clinical basis and that no examination can prove a girl or 179 Ibid, para.312. 50 I P age - African Union ~ The African Commission on

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