Secondly, the third Victim constantly fell ill with colds, fevers, and diarrhoea while in
detention, but was not provided with any medical care. Thirdly, the first Victim did not
receive any antenatal or postnatal medical care and was even kept in shackles while
giving birth to her daughter, the fourth Victim. Additionally, the fourth Victim, who was
born three weeks premature and under challenging conditions, did not receive any
neonatal medical care.
130. The Complainants concluded that these violations
failure on the part of the authorities to fulfill
physical integrity of individuals in detention..
violations directly contradict the State's 0
.
Charter to respect, protect, and fulfill the right
of the right to health demonstrate a
to ensure the well-being and
argued that these
16 of the African
Article 18(1)(2): the Right to Family Life
131. The Complainant submitted that the first Victim was d
of the African Charter, to which states have both a positive ..
. i.e.,
to assist the family in meetingits needs and interests and
from abuse by its officials, organs, and third narties}:as was
Republic of Bots7Vana."67 The Complainants referred the case
Human Rights
Organisation & Centre onI-lousing Righfs,:q . Evictio1J;5,,;lCOHRE)v. Sudan.68 in which the
Commission
"arbitrary or t}ril~,
interfer~~~e with the family" contravenes
Article 18(1).
'''';"
132. Conversely,
.submitted that Article 18(2), in its negative sense, requires a State to
"refrain from violating the rights and interests of the family."69 The Complainants
ackn()wledged thd3ituality of the Article 18 guarantee in the COHRE case, where it stated
that ehS'u~ing the
etion provided !pr under Article 23 of the International Covenant
on Qi
ansi. 'politic~
. hts requii'%~~that States parties should adopt legislative,
adminis,qativ¢~or~pther m
to'
ring the protection of the family as also requires
that State~,\refr~'ili\'fr0:rn any
;, at will affect the family unit, including arbitrary
separationPof family :rn~mbers and involuntary displacement of families."?"
I
P~91
133. The Complainants also noted with respect to General Comment No. 19 that it is a "right
of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to find a family."71 Relevantly,
"prosecution for adultery
is contrary to international law as 'the criminalization of sexual
ce .
~
67
Communication
68 Communication
i~
313/05,26 May 2010, Para 212.
279/03-296/05,27
May 2009, ~ 213.
,
\/v.,:~~
69 Citing
Ke~eth. Good, Supra, at para 212.
.
. .
.
. /:\ I..)~
70 Communication
279/03-296/05,
Sudan Human RIghts Organisation & Centre on Housmg Rlg!t~~;"a~if.G'EV1cllOhs<'0",,\
(COHRE) 1). Sudan, 27 May 2009, Para 214.
.:,"
/
7l UN H~?,an Rights Committee,
"General Comment No. 19: Protection of the family, right to marri~ge anf eqf(qlinj of
':5 u~\
the spouse, 1990, Pg4,
I',
I
,1
-r I
\.
o \
.
::;1
1) (<<\
I "
.,.,'·~'-~/o.J
- s.:~
{\u·\I.l\
. .1.
'"
'/i'
\':V;u
C
-~~.
'-,~
0'I,
29 <),.c-•: <.~
i\IAeRI( ,I\\I~
I/O
J::,,? ""/
,;~;U·;".l['E'T [ltS
'I'
,§',