24. Article 3 of the Amnesty Law of 23rd April 1992 reads:
.... the persons condemned who have been granted amnesty and who had public employment will be
reintegrated.....
25. Still after the Amnesty Law of 23rd April 1992, Mr Mazou has been denied reinstatement by the
government in his former professional capacity as a magistrate.
26. The delegation of the government which appeared at the 20th session claimed the reason to be that he
is not covered by the Amnesty law of 23rd April 1992, because he has not been judged of subversion or
sentenced to detention. It also stated that disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Mazou because of his
sentence>>.
27. Although according to the delegation, Mr. Mazou was judged for an ordinary criminal offence in
Cameroon, he was still judged by a Military Tribunal. The delegation answered the Commission's questions
about this as follows: "Why he was tried by a Military Tribunal? Everybody knows that when you are
involved in a problem which includes the attempt to violently, using arms, overthrow a government and a
president, then you are actually taking actions in political acts, something of a political nature. The coup
plotters of 1984 were judged by the Military Tribunal and since Mr. Mazou hid for some time a brother of his
who was involved, then there was, there could have been a connection between the coup attempt and the
fact that Mr. Mazou had accepted to hide his brother."
28. To the Commission it still seems peculiar that Mr Mazou was tried by a Military Tribunal like the coup
plotters and that afterwards he is not given amnesty like them. The delegation promised to forward to the
Commission the written judgement of the Military Tribunal. This has not yet happened.
29. The Commission finds that by not reinstating Mr Mazou in his former position after the Amnesty Law,
the government has violated Article 15 of the African Charter, because it has prevented Mr. Mazou to work
in his capacity of a magistrate even though others who have been condemned under similar conditions
have been reinstated.
Holding
For the above reasons, the Commission
Declares a violation of Articles 6, 7(1)(b), 7(1)(d) and 15;
Recommends that the Government of Cameroon draw all the necessary legal conclusions to reinstate the
victim in his rights.
Taken at the 21st Ordinary Session, Nouakchott, Mauritania, April 1997
3