unreasonable
restriction on her freedom of religion. These punishments
are also
inconsistent with the African Charter. Although the Court of Appeal overturned the first
Victim's convictions and sentences, the majority of the court based their decision on the
erroneous ground that she was not mentally responsible for her actions. This failure by
the Court of Appeal to uphold the first Victim's right to freedom of religion, as enshrined
in Article 8 of the African Charter and the Interim National Constitution of Sudan, 2005,
has resulted in continued threats to her life from Islamist fundamentalist
groups. These
threats have forced her and her family to flee Sudan.
121. Overall, the violations of the first Victim's rights'to freegam of religion include the
incorrect application of Shari'a law, the charge of ap.o~tasy for converting to Catholicism,
t
the contradictory
convictions,
the pressure
t:,,0 affirm; the Islamic faith, the
disproportionate
punishments, and th~,1 .
, f the
t of
to protect her right
to freedom of religion.
' i.
'
~PRe'11
Article 12: the Freedom of Movement
f
(-':':l{i
>
122. The Complainant raised the issue" tQq,t the vioQ:1fls
. deprived of~eir right to freedom
of movement, which Article 12 of'tnt;! African
er safeguards. They asserted that
Sudan violated Articles J?(1) and 12(g),':;*Qfthe
'can Charter. They highlighted a
previous case, Suda Hurruii1Rights Orgq~i~a,~tRn&
on Housing Rights and Evictions
(COHRE) vs Suda, ' ...hich stat~d,tha;fffeea6m
of mo . ent is a fundamental human
right crucial fOf:, protecting arid' promoting other hd:h1:b rights and fundamental
freedoms.
,"
l' :f,
_
.~
123. The Complainants p:pded that Article 12(1) of the African Charter includes the freedom
., ,""4,,""
. '.'.'1'
to ttaveC reside, an' work in any part of tije state without interference from the state.
RegaKd.ing f;\rticle 12 ; h,~~eComplaiq~ts
a~gued that every individual has the right to
+'"
0'
leave 'tbeir"cQR,PR'Y' inclQ:q%'lg.:!heir,;,~~' and return only subject to lawful restrictions
that protect nafiorial securitY~'I~~:'9lgct'corder, public health, or morality.
't"
I,
'~"<',
t·I;.k;¥r'
in, the case of Movement Burkinabe des droits de l'Homme et des peuples vs.
Burkina Faso,60)ound a violation of Article 12(2) when a political party leader was
124. The Commission,
prohibited from leaving Burkina Faso after publishing
situation in the CQUntry.
a statement
about the political
125. In another case, Sir Dauida K. [atuara vs The Gambia, the Commission found a violation of
Article.s 12(1) a_nd 12(2) ~f the Charter, where government officials were rre~,~~Jed'f!pgn
travelling outside Cambia.s!
' (<:\..\y~~::_IIl'" "'(~\
.-....
.r
)(l~.
59 Communication
60 Communication
61 Communication
279/03-296/05,,27
May 2009, Para 187.
204/97, Para 47.
147/95-149/96, Para 70.
,~\}
<
~.:.'
'\
'f
~[
f>..
.?
Q.:
J'I
.
:
,
"-
\S~
<.:i/ (~0
V/I
1\...
,,' ....
r , '4~RIUI,\1'o <,..\',/1.
"
/f[)~"
ore \ Ai'
..
'ME [=1
'~
...
27
CJl1