committed by the Sudanese protesters themselves. It states that these crimes
occurred due to protesters’ refusal to adhere to the repeated warnings to
disperse. Such refusal led to protestors falling over and consequently asphyxia
occurred which caused the death of some persons as well as injury including
injury of some policemen. It concludes that these events are not related by any
means to any violations of their rights as far as the African Charter is
concerned.
68.
The Respondent State further avers that none of the injured Sudanese who
were questioned in the investigations of the General Prosecution Authority
accused anyone in particular of causing their injuries. In addition, the
Respondent State contends, none of the injured or the families of the deceased
demanded any compensation for the damage caused or sought civil remedies.
It reiterates that the fact that criminal charges had been dropped does not mean
that the injured or the families of the deceased cannot seek civil remedies.
69.
It further states that none of the Victims submitted any evidence or information
to the police or the General Prosecution Authority that may help in identifying
the perpetrators – and even whether these perpetrators were among the
protesters or others who caused the incident. It states that the many requests
submitted to the General Prosecution Authority by some of the NGOs calling
for investigation by the General Prosecution Authority did not include any
new evidence or information related to the incident.
70.
62. The Respondent State concludes that the complaints submitted to the
esteemed Commission are unacceptable and are untrue as they lack any
evidence. The Complainants are holders of refugee cards who enjoy legal
status and permanently reside in Egypt and who were supposed to raise
awareness to the other protestors and enlighten them of the law.
Oral Submission to the Commission
71.
At the 44th Ordinary Session of the Commission, the parties made oral
submissions to the Commission. However, no new facts were adduced and is
was basically a restatement of what was already contained in their
Admissibility briefs.
16