110. They also cited various guidelines and principles established by the Commission, which
outline the conditions under which deprivation of liberty can be considered arbitrary and
contrary to Article 6.50
111. Specifically, the Complainants argued that the Respondent State violated their rights to
liberty and security of the person in several ways. Firstly, they claimed that the arrest and
detention of the first Victim were discriminatory based on her gender and religion. She
was targeted because she was the daughter of a Muslim man who had converted to
Christianity and married a Christian man. Secondly, they argued that the pre-trial
detention of the first Victim, while pregnant and together with her infant son, was not a
measure of last resort and was unnecessary. The, offences ,~h~
was accused of did not
involve endangering life or material damage and:did not ~~rrant pre-trial detention.
Thirdly, they claimed that the subseque~,t.:pro~~cutit;].!
and copviction of the first Victim
4i
jeopardized her and her children's liberDi: and'. urity'of the person. She received severe
sentences of corporal punishment ang;J:Jledeath ,~l!lalty,aI!g she ana tt~lrc;Jtildrenwere
held in deplorable conditions in dete;tii.~" or overim~~monihs,i'Addition'a1l9~;she was not
permitted to leave the prison to give birt r QJ,:cing
lf~T~JOgive bli-th while shackled. Even
after her release, the first Victim and her fa'iftilxfa~e.dthreats, further prosecution, and
intimidation by Sudanese authorities: Y;trtheim:~r:~,the Complainants argued that the
first Victim .was subject~,g.Joincommunicad? def~lIi~n on several occasions, where she
was cut off from co ununication with the out~ide worJ,(;!"~nd
denied access to her lawyers
and family. In. Iyrevious cases, the Commissiorv",deemed these instances of
incommunicado'I etention to be cg]:)itraryand a gross violation of human rights.f
,
,'I'
,
fi
,l;
~(
112. The Complaina:qi\~.invokedthe Comrilis.~ion'sprevious rulings on the right to security of
person, which distinguishes between individual and national securtty.F They argued that
the Respondent State violated the firstvictim's right to security of the person under both
~
strands of'~.e right, as e: physical i~tegrity was not protected by the state from abuse
by offi~ial~tl'llio~i,tiesor
pt,i0""
.
-
Article 7: The Right to a Fair Trial
.
113. The Compl~~.q~~i::~rgued~'~hat
the first Victim's right to a fair trial was violated, as
outlined in RrQ_cle7 of the African Charter. They cited the case of Mr Mamboleo M.
Itundamilamba vs' The Democratic Republic of Cong053 as support that Article 7 is a universal
50 Cited
Commission's "Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003,
Section M1(b) "Guidelines on the Conditions of Arrest, Police Custody and Pre-Trial Detention in Africa, and the
cases of the Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) vs. Sudan
Communication 279/03-296/05 Para 172, and Free Legal Assistance Group, Laurqers' Committee for Human Rights,
Union lnterafricaine des Droits de l'Homme, Les Temoins de Jehovah v. ORC Communications 25/89-47/90-56/91100/93 at Para 45.
51 Referring to the positions in Liesbeth Zegveld and Mussie Ephrem vs. Eritrea, Communication
250/02,20
'UI"
~
,/; , 0'\ '. "'1/~ -:~_
November 2003, Pg 53, and Sir Daioda K. [auiara v. Gambia 147/95-149/96 P59.
. ~o\\ ~I'nf F?,,, -'ltvo~,
52 Citing the Communication
279/03-296/05, Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing"Rig#ts
<'o~\.
Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan, 27 May 2009, Para 175
(:
~~\
53 Communication
302/05, Pg 112
III
~,\\
aWL;')'"
.,J
\?
":'
\
.., jI
·"(r':;r . ........._''Y
'\,"..
\ " c,r.
c"
E c;; j
0
AU.UA2A)
,_ \.
I\.
/
-'1. F..('A\I,-'
"l~
'F ET DEC' \
.,.~,*"~,....,,
:r '
<y'?
II
Q'
()...;"
'-:-.;'::
I:?
~'v
c.....) _/'"
y-
'!
'/