Previous 13 / 48 Next

victims.P In fulfilment of this requirement, the Complainants maintained that they correctly identified themselves and their representatives, who have signed all their documents containing their contact details. The Complainants also added that the information provided regarding the identity of the first Victim was adequate to the extent that the Respondent State was able to identify her and respond accordingly. 60. Regarding requirements of Article 56 (2)of the Charter, the Complainants submitted that all the conditions required by this article, as translated within the practice of the Commission, citing Sir Dauida K. [atoara vs. The Gambia'> (among others) were duly satisfied. The Complainants submitted that, as set out in their submissions on Admissibility, the Communication is submitted against Sudan, which ratified the African Charter on 18February 1986.It alleges severe violations of the African Charter committed on the Respondent State's territory on and after 15September 2013,and these allegations are supported by prima facie evidence. 61. Concerning the assertion of the Respondent State that the Communication has not complied with Article 56 (3) because it contains disparaging or insulting language directed against it, the Complainants cite, respectively, Ilesanmi vs Nigeria, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe, and Eyob B. Asemie v the Kingdom ofLesotho.14 submitted that tn, guage used is neither disparaging nor insulting. 62. Responding to the assertion that the Complaints are exclusively based on "news disseminated through the media", the Complainants submitted that the requirement of Article 56(4) was met because the information contained in the initial Compliants submitted to the Commission and the information contained in the submission on Admissibility is not solely based on media reports, but also other sources such as court documents and information provided and verified by the lawyers of the Complainants and the Complainants themselves. They supported their submission with the position in Sir Dawda K Jawara vs. The Gambia.IS "While it will be dangerous to rely exclusively on the news disseminated through the mass media, it would be equally damaging if the African Commission were to reject a Communication because some aspects of it are based on news dissemin~t~lathrough the media." 63. In response to the contention of the Respondent State that local remedies have not been exhausted in compliance with Article 56 (5) because the Complainants could have, amongst others, approached the Constitutional Court, the Complainants cited Article 19 Communication 266/03,para. 67, referring to Malawi African Association et al v Mauritania, Communications 54/91, 61/91,98/93,164/97,196/97 and 210/98, para. 79. 13, Communications 147/95-149/96, para.41;Darfur Reliefand Documentation Centre v Sudan, commurg~~~t05( para. 64. ."'~~Sl C ET":JiI-1 "0' 14 Communication 268/03, para. 39; Communication 284/03, para. 97; and Communication 43§/12, E-ara':""58~" 15 Communication 147/95-149(96, para. 24 . I:: (. 12 I··t I~ (1 ~ .. ·i ~ \'4 ',\ '. iC. U'i W;I: 11/,")0,..1 -~, ~U'/A u /, u Il .. ~, '-'''' ~:.> 'i .14 l I':;: d :.":; \ " <.)'. I".J. ,. t\ ,)\ , ... -: _;. c: \ ~6 'V \".x~~,. 1'", FT OE~ I y'~ ._~ ./ If 1 ",,,\\~,,t:. ~---=...:;;.--"

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 471/14 - Meriam Yahia Ibrahim and three more v. Sudan

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Detention Facilities/Conditions
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Freedom from Discrimination
Freedom of Movement
Freedom of Religion
Personal Liberty
Personal security
Pregnant women / mothers (with infant) in conflict with the law
Protection of Family and Vulnerable Groups
Right to be Heard before a Competent Court
Right to Dignity
Right to Fair Trial
Right to Family
Right to Health
Right to Life
Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights
Torture and Ill Treatment
Women in prison
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The first victim, whose father was a Sudanese Muslim, and whose mother was an Ethiopian Christian, married a Christian and was consequently arrested for adultery. A charge of apostasy was also added against the first victim because her father was a Muslim, and according to Article 126 of the 1991 Criminal Code, she was prohibited from changing to another religion. The first victim was arrested with her child, and detained in prison. Upon convicting the first victim of apostasy, the Court gave her three days to recant her faith, or face the possible sentence of death. While the Court of Appeal revoked the convictions and sentences, and ordered the first victim's immediate release, in 2014, all victims (the first victim and her family) were arrested when they were about to leave the Respondent State. They were subsequently detained at a detention facility and denied access to lawyers. Following negotiations between Italy and the Respondent State, the victims left Sudan for Italy. The Commission found a violation of Article 2, stating that it is unjust to apply religious laws against individuals who do not follow that particular religion, and also because non-Muslims have the right to be judged by a secular court. They also noted that women and men experience differential treatment with respect to justifying their intermarriages. The Commission found a violation of Article 3 stating that there was no justifiable basis for the first victim's adultery conviction, particularly when her husband was not similarly found guilty for intermarriage. The Commission found a violation of Article 4, on account of the gravely inadequate and inhumane conditions in the detention facility, and additionally because the death sentence, and associated threats against the first victim were traumatic. Noting that it is a violation of Article 4 when individuals are forced to go into hiding, the Commission also stated that the Respondent State failed to protect the victims lives, despite the known threat from extremist groups, which forced the victims to leave Sudan for their safety. The Commission found a violation of Article 5 noting the physical and emotional trauma the victims experienced. Specifically, the ongoing intimidation of the victims, including demanding the first victim to change her religion or face the death penalty, and shackling the first victim for most of her detention contravened Article 5. The Commission found a violation of Article 6 because the Respondent State failed to safeguard the victims' physical well-being against maltreatement by government authorities, and private individuals, and, further, agreed with the Complainants' argument that the first victim was arrested and detained on a discriminatory basis. The Commission found a violation of Article 7 because the victims were denied access to lawyers, faced discrimination based on gender, and also becuase of incorrect assumptions by the Court regarding the Court's own jurisdiction, and the victim's relgious beliefs. The Commission found a violation of Article 8, stating that incorrect assumptions regarding the first victim's faith hindered her ability to profess and practice her religion, and further noting that the criminalization of her supposed change in religion also violated Article 8. The Commission found a violation of Article 12 stating that the continued threats by third parties, which the Respondent State has failed to protect the victims from, prevents the victims from returning to Sudan safely. They note that the Respondent State's failure to protect also forced the Complainants to leave Sudan against their will, in order to protect themselves. The Commission found a violation of Article 16 because the victims were deprived of basic needs, including access to food, basic hygiene, and medical care during their incarceration. They also specifically noted that the absence of antenatal and postnatal care, and neonatal care, violated the right to heatlh. The Commission found a violation of Article 18, generally, because of the interference in the victims' family life and, specifically, because of discrimination in the first victim's right to choose a spouse. On account of the other violations, the Commission found a violation of Article 1. The Commission urged the Respondent State to take all measures to provide effective remedies, including restitution, compensation, policy reforms, public apology, and legal reforms. They also recommended a prompt and impartial investigation into the First Victims's arrest, detention, conviction and sentencing and requested the Respondent State to provide an update on implementation.

Country

Sudan

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Mar 8, 2024

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 8: Right to Freedom of Conscience

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 12: Right to Freedom of Movement
ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 8: Right to Freedom of Conscience

Duration of Procedure

Jun 2, 2014 ~ Mar 8, 2024

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 12.862807

Longitude: 30.217636

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Sudan

Primary Documents

Meriam Yahia Ibrahim and Three More v Sudan.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 471/14 - Meriam Yahia Ibrahim and three more v. Sudan

Primary Documents

Notifications