Previous 31 / 48 Next

relations between consenting adults international human rights law'."72 is a violation of their right to privacy under 134. They concluded that the conviction of the first Victim for the offence of adultery by the Haj Yossif General Court constituted a fundamental breach of her rights to marry and found a family under Article 18 of the African Charter, notwithstanding the Court of Appeal's revocation of her convictions, given the Court's failure to uphold the first Victim's religious freedom (and thus her marriage). Article 1: The Failure in the Respondent's Duty to Give Effect to the Charter cited Abdel Hadi, Ali Radi, andsothere vs. Republic of Sudan/» and Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights & INTERIGHTS, y. Egyp> hey argued that violating any provision of the Charter" means yiolati.h rtiele i and liability thereunder. Citing Noah Kazingashire, John Chitsenga, Elia" tnvurq " nd Batatzai.Hadzisi::(J:,?imbabwe,74 they submitted that ratification of the AfH Chartert,~9.uires~"/h,!xmonizati .. · of national laws with the African Charter. As argue .pve, in tl\~present·'c:a..'se, the Resp ndentState is directly responsible for the violations oH~;rti,cles 2;§3, 4, 5, 6, 7; 8, 12, 16, and 18 of the African Charter in respect of the Victims, f()r,"'~r:s~giTIgin conductvwhich violated the rights enshrined in those provisions. The Respolf .' t State furthermore failed to put in place a legal framework to protect the>~YgJ:its, of the. plainants or provide them with access to adequat . emediesand redress:' 135. The Complainants e II .v The Commission's Analysis of the Submission of Merits 136. The Commissiof ,}'Vill first consider 'the alleged violations of Article 2 of the African Charter to determtite each allegation. After analyzing all the other Articles, the provisions of Article 1 will He addressed. This is because a violation of Article 1 can only be estabHsne~t1it?ther Af~~~,,~~, in "" ~fr; Charter have been violated. This is a common practictdollo-weq"by the?(1!E .. ' rrussior ,'~ if ,~ " On Alleged Violation of Article 2: The Right Against Discrimination 137. Article 2 prov~de§:!pat: . "Every individuaZ;J5hallbe entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the"present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national and social origin, fortune, birth or another status;" 138. To determine whether Article 2 of the African Charter has been violated, the Commission considers that various international and regional instruments provide for discrimination against women, as it is guided by Article 60 of the African Charter. StartiIJg"'WitJ:}.the, /.,' o~'At; ~j''\A' -..... . -;::;-.U\ <,cRt 1 M?/"1;'.vO 2'.~ ..c" S <_,,, f o'?~ UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, "Sudan: UN rights experts condemn death sentence ~gain§(pr;in'an\ mother Jor apostasy and adultery", 19 May 2014, 73 Commun~ca~on 368/09, 4 June 2014,Para 91 ~ '2 -, - /);, 74 Communication 295/04, Para 142. '\~A ...;~'\. AU·UA 72 ?' . ( (. . .~ III ,.) -, ,"1' hW,t\IN ~- \ ~ c;,"L /} . .......__ ~ : II ,<.)' ~0(/ 30,' ';. • or (T Df ,\ ..., I)

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