407/11 Artur Margaryan and Artur Sargsyan v the Republic of Kenya Summary of the Complaint 1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat) received a Complaint on 7 October 2011 from Artur Margaryan and Artur Sargsyan (the Complainants) against the Republic of Kenya1 (the Respondent State). 2. The Complainants are Armenian nationals who normally reside in the United Arab Emirates. The Complainants submit that on 18 January 2006 they applied for work permits for the position of Directors in "Kensington Holdings Limited" and "Brother Link International Limited" in the Respondent State. These companies were registered in the Respondent State's Registrar of Companies on 13 February 2004 and 1 December 2005, respectively. The Complainants submit that they were each granted a work permit for a period of two years on 19 January 2006 by the Inter-Ministerial Committee of the Respondent State. 3. The Complainants aver that their business involved importing a large number of goods, mainly electronic equipment, into the Respondent State. 4. The Complainants allege that since the beginning of their stay in the Respondent State, Mr. Raila Odinga, currently the Prime-Minister of the Respondent State, announced in public, inter alia, that the Complainants entered the country without compliance to relevant statutes, that they were mercenaries, they had connections with people known to be dealing in drugs and no meaningful investigation had been carried out in respect of these allegations. 5. The Complainants submit that they held a press conference in which they refuted the statements of Mr. Odinga as false, malicious and defamatory to them. The Complainants submit that they met Mr. Odinga on several occasions in the Respondent State prior to his allegations, when he sought a loan from the Complainants amounting 1.5 million US Dollars to finance certain political activities; however the Complainants declined to grant this loan. The Complainants submit that Mr. Odinga subsequently obtained a personal loan from Mr. Artur Margayan, which he did not pay back. The Complainants indicate that Mr. Odinga was publishing false statements with the intention to "close of the door of the Respondent State before them," in order to avoid returning the borrowed money. 6. The Complainants submit that the scandal was repeatedly published in the mass media and broadcasted on TV with various comments made from other public officials and citizens. 7. The Complainants submit that in the spring of 2006, Mr. Artur Margaryan lodged a civil suit with the High Court of the Respondent State, Case No. 314 of 2006, against Mr. Raila Odinga, seeking to have his false, malicious and defamatory statements refuted. The Complainants submit that each of the parties filed written comments contesting the allegations of Mr. Odinga; however the case is still pending trial. 8. The Complainants submit that on 8 June 2006 at 7.00 pm, Mr. Artur Margaryan went to the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) to meet his guests from Dubai. The Complainants submit that some Customs officials at JKIA alleged that one guest had not declared and paid the duty fee for some of the goods in his luggage. Mr. Artur Margayran objected, stating that no duty fee should be paid for personal belongings. The Complainants aver that the matter dissolved into an argument; however Mr. Artur Margaryan was forced to take the luggage away and resolved to settle the disputed matter later. 9. The Complainants submit that on the same day, 8 June 2006 at 11.45pm, they were arrested at their residence and escorted to the police station where they were put in custody. 10. The Complainants submit that on 9 June 2006 they were compulsorily expelled from the Respondent State to the United Arab Emirates. Further, on the same day, the police searched their house and seized all their goods, including 13 vehicles. 11. The Complainants state that by Gazette Notice No. 4308 of 13 June 2006, the President, acting under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act Cap 102, appointed a Commission to inquire into "various wrongful, criminal or otherwise unlawful acts and omissions, including but not limited to breaches of security proceedings involving the Complainants and Others." The Commission, also known as the Kiruki Commission, was also requested to recommend, inter alia, criminal investigation or prosecution of the Complainants. 12. The Complainants submit that the Kiruki Commission should have been inquiring into the circumstances and events leading to their deportation. 1