28. The
Complainant
Human
and
submits
Peoples'
Complainant
is
admissibility
of
Rights
now
a
that
"in
August
(the
required
the
2015
Commission)
to
present
Communication
dated
African
seized
arguments
August
26th
Commission
this
matter
and
evidence
2015
pursuant
on
and
the
on
the
to
Rule
105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission". The Complainant submits
that all domestic remedies have been exhausted.
29. The Complainant reiterates the submissions in relation to the Complaint as set
out above, and also provided further informatio
about the Complaint, which
has subsequently been incorporated above. The Complainant further submitted
questions for determination by the Commissi
n related to whether there was an
unfair trial and a substantial miscarriage ofjustice.2
30. Under the heading, "The Co
plainant' s Submission" the Complainant submits
that the Supreme Court and'tfie Judicial l:;:ommittee of the
errors when it successively refu e
further submits
stage,
as
a
that from
result.
of
the
the Complainant's appeal.,Jbe Complainant
outse
adverse
rivy Council fell into
and
of th
case,
prejudicial
Complainant's right-to a fair trial pursuan
as
early as
publicity
the investigative
by
the
press,
the
to Secti.£Jl 10 of the Constitution of
the Republic of. Mauritius could not have be n possible. Furthermore, due to all
'\
the facts set o
tin this Complaint which amount to breaches of human rights, the
Cqmplainant submits
Com
that there has
een a serious miscarriage of justice. The
lainant further refers to the dack of.parity of treatment between the Victim
and tfie co-accused regarding consideration of time spent on remand.
31. The Complainant requests the Commission to make a determination that there
had been a miscarriage o
justice and declare the co
a nullity, as well as
':,\Ult ON l<LJ ..4\,i"'D
The R:,::.::: :.:.:::::�::•A::�.::7li;,;�s
®')
\
�
�
\
AU·UA
�
:.r
t,
1'
2
The questions submitted for determination by the Commission are as fol
'wi;.;..,\'� ·
"Z_
�
Ef
wrong to direct the defence witness,
resulting in
an
unfair trial;
he Presiding Judge was
DES\>\:.
b) whetherthl!-
residing Judge ought to warn
defence witness only when incriminating questions were put to him and not otherwise; c) whether the Presiding
Judge
wrongly
exercised
his
discretion
in
refusing
to
order the
prosecution
to
tender
a
particular
prosecution
witness; d) whether the prosecution in not calling a particular witness deprived the Victim of a fair trial; e) whether
the Presiding judge caused confusion in the minds of the jury, thereby rendering the verdict unsafe; and f) whether
the
sentence
imposed
and
thereafter
increased
breaches
treatment.
5
the
Complainant's
right to
protection
from
inhuman