this requirement, the Commission notes in General Comment No. 19 (also cited by the
Complainants) that it is a "right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to
find a family."115
200. The circumstances of this communication suggest the interference with family life and,
in particular, discrimination on the right to choose a spouse. The prosecution of the first
Victim for the offence of adultery, as noted, in violation of Article 2 of the Charter,
exacerbates the violation of the rights under Article 18 of the African Charter.
201. Given the above, the Commission
the African Charter.
On the alleged violation
Charter
finds the Respollq~1ltStat~
. ,
"
in violation of Article 18 of
of Article 1: The Failure in the Respondent's
',.
Duty to Give Effect to the
202.
sures to give effect to them."
''I:''
203. The Complainants
submitted
'.'.
ot(~r!le African Charter requires
"harmonization"
of national la:W$~.with the A 'can Charter. As argued above, in the
present case, thE:j,;Respondent Sta'if:~?; irectly res
ible for the violations of Articles 2,
M.w
3,4,5,6,7,8,
12;'16, and 18 of the A
\
.
<;an Charter in respect of the Victims, for engaging
.,,<l~~~,<\
in conduct which violated the rights ensltrlned in those provisions.
furtti~fmqre
failed' to put in place a legal' framework
cori{il~i1ia~l~i:~r provide them with .a~sess t~ adequate
",,'
',_i~<,.
The Respondent
to protect
the rights
State
of the
remedies
and redress.
submitted
that it entails that the
~ .~~T~-:~~.~.
204. Unpacking
the oblliation
/",
'.'
to respect, the Complainant
State shoul ;refra;·f~';fTOfl1':k~t~rfering in the enjoyment
Complainan
that -any
.
er cited il1~;inter-American
of all fundamental
rights. The
Court in Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras'w
exeidls~ of public power that violates the rights recognized
by the Convention
is illegal. Whenever, a State organ, official, or public entity violates one of those rights,
~;: ..¥;;--'!
this constitutes
a failure of the duty to respect the rights and freedoms
Convention.r" The Complainants
stated that the conclusion
outlined
is independent
in the
of whether
the organ or official has contravened provisions of internal law or overstepped the limits
of his authority and that under international law, a State is responsible for the acts of its
,
_______
.----
-""
\
\,__
.".1,
.
,(
l "~.'
(JI
1'1,'/'1>
I
(\
o~,
c:
UN Human Rights Committee, "General Comment No. 19: Protection of the family, right to marriage and"equa1itiJ~
the spouse", 1990, Pg 4,
,)
\
116IACtHR, Series C, No,4, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para 169
~ r (
\.. ..
~
)
\
115
117ibid
" (.
\
'.'~
,
cl'
\
J!!
AU IIA
"
/'
°01\1 "'_
\. (~
}.
\r
\!5!}~
..... ""'5")
"1':RI'~AlI"" "I: "
O,..,,~,
"t:
,\1
[T DE:; \
;::-..::_: ~
~
I
~;;;
0'
'''l
<v
,.