16. On 22 September 2010, the Secretariat received the Complainant's submission on Admissibility,
acknowledged receipt and forwarded the submissions to the Respondent State on 5 October 2010.
17. The decision on Admissibility was deferred during the 48th and 49th Ordinary Sessions pending
submissions from the Respondent State.
18. During the 50th Ordinary Session, the Respondent State made its submissions which were sent for
translation and forwarded to the Complainant on 14 November 2011.
19. The Complainant made additional submissions on 8 April 2012 which were forwarded to the
Respondent State on 18 May 2012. On 18 June 2012, the Respondent State also made additional
submissions which were forwarded to the Complainant on 10 July 2012.
20. The decision on Admissibility was deferred during the 51st and 52nd Ordinary Sessions.
21. During its 13th Extra-Ordinary Session held from 19 to 25 February 2013, the Commission took a
decision on the Admissibility of the Communication and the Parties were duly notified.
The Law on Admissibility
Submissions of the Complainant
22. The Complainant submits that the Communication complies with Article 56 of the African Charter. In
relation to Article 56 (5), the Complainant avers that local remedies have been exhausted. It outlines the
following, which includes measures taken by the Victim regarding his Complaint:
1. While in prison, the Victim lodged a Complaint on 29 January 1990 to the Chairman of the
Revolutionary Command Council, Oumar Hassan El-Bashir with copies to the Attorney-General, the
Chief Justice, the Vice-Chancellor of the Khartoum University (for attention of the University Senate)
and other concerned Government Officials. The Victim requested to be released, and asked the
Government to carry out a full investigation in order to hold the perpetrators accountable for the
crimes committed against him. No investigation was opened despite medical evidences, and the
Vice-Chancellor did not submit the Victim's request to the Senate;
2. In June 1991, the Victim left Sudan to settle in Cairo for fear of his safety and in the mid-nineties, he
received advice from his lawyer not to return to Khartoum in search of justice due to the political
situation;
3. In October 1998, the Victim and other opposition leaders were invited by the Government of Sudan
to take part in a Conference on the Constitution of Sudan. In response, the Victim demanded that
the Government investigates the acts of torture he was subjected to whilst in prison as a condition
for his participation;
4. The Victim could not approach the courts at the time because his arrest and detention were based
on Decree No. 2 of June 1989 which introduced a state of emergency in Sudan and permitted the
detention of anyone suspected of being a threat to political or economic security. According to the
said Decree, no reasons of such arrest needed to be given; detainees have no right to contact
family members or access to a lawyer of their choice, and no right to challenge the legality of the
detention before a judicial body or the validity of the Decree itself. The Decree was subsequently
replaced by a legislation governing the security services and emergency regulations that equally
provide for broad powers of arrest and detention.5
5. Further, at the time of the Victim's Complaint, neither the criminal offence of hurt,6 and extorting
confessions under Articles 271 and Article 282 of the 1983 Criminal Code, nor other relevant
criminal offences were subject to any statute of limitations. Subsequently, with the adoption of the
Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) in 1991, the criminal offence of torture retroactively became subject
to a limitation period of two years, and/or, the offence of hurt for a maximum period of five years.
This means, according to the Complainant, that the alleged perpetrators could no longer be
prosecuted since the statutory limitation period expired in 1994 notwithstanding the fact that the
Victim's complaint was brought in 1990.
2