ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
I
I
I
i
this argument, the Complainant refe~s to the decision of the Supreme
Court of Zimbabwe in 5 v Ndhlovu, where it held that:38
The freedom [from] torture, cruel, inhumal or ~egrading punishment and treatment
is not confined to punishments which are [in their nature inhuman or degrading. It
also extends to punishments which are' grossly disproportionate': those which are
inhuman or degrading in their disproportionality to the seriousness of the offence, in
I
that no one coul4 possibly have thought that the particular offence would have
attracted such a penalty...
l
94. The Complainant argues that in applyi g the above principles to the facts
of the present Communication, there c~n
I be no dq;u;ptc:tllatthe sentence of
15 ~?nths imprisonme~t with l~~our, }~;'?'"whic~~;}pm~nths was
conditionally suspended, IS grossly dispropC)rtl~~~te to\t~e senousness of
the offence committed by the victim.
·~(;:):;~t:;:,,/;L;"..
.r'', ._ .....,',.
,.".~
L"£""''''''
,'<:: t...
"
"'\j'<"
95. The Complainant submits that bY)nli~sing\vi.}effecll~/~Jt:prison
sentence
~:_;!~
when other forms of puni~~enf ::'~,o.,Uld):;;havebee::"" ppropriate,
Parliament failed to guard aga~~t an exce§'si\Fedevotions 0 the cause of
deterrence. Hence, the COIfwlainaflt~'£:~.ntends~t99:~
Parliament did not give
due regard to mitigatil1g'i~~ctors, a~~1\t~.,
Victim. acted in the heat of the
moment and in respqn§e4tdt~§xere_(l1tb~'~£·~,t.ion.
T,he
Complainant submits
,<-.;_.;y~
t'"M
I
-"',,'f ~~~\
.,
that if these factors- were con$J~~red, it wqH!gy,have greatly reduced the
Victim's moral blamewotthines"si);:Itt~erefotE(submits that this omission
amounts to a vi~ia tion of Articles '4~i>,J 5 of the African Charter.
.
_-i :_.~......
'-
0
_.-.
'\.
•••
",
',j-'6"
Alleged violation o(At;ticles 6 of th~ Affi~an Charter
vJtim
96. The C;'~Pli!inant :dbmly;:< thaf~e
was subjected to an unlawful
and arB~1i.ary;>'"
~~; on 9'Oc-tober 2002,[asthe charges brought against him
were fals~i,It §:;r 'i111:~~,:",t~'tt
following the arrest of the Victim, his lawyers
were deni~a.,:gtcesst6{ruin and threatened with violence.
"';;',
,"'
I
97. The ComplaiB:fl,ptalleges that after sdffering humiliation and abuse, the
Victim and other arrested persons were eventually taken to court and
accused of violating the Electoral Ac~ by taking photographs within a
hundred (100) meters of the polling sta~on. The Complainant submits that
there was no evidence to sustain the charge, hence the State never
proceeded with the matter. However,lthe Complainant contends that the
action~ of the Respondent Stat~ a~d its!failure to stop the arbitrary a~r~~_~!_
detentIO~s and assa~lt o~the VI.chmat rhe hand~ of.Sta~ea~en~~te~~_,
to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty and security In violahO}?;,W~~~t121WI6r
('o~\
of the African Charter.
l!_!
....... <~\\
O
:f1
(~,'
ul
~Gl Ii
__________
.r __
'1(.)
·,\,'-O'W))
0
Ii
385
v Ndhlovu (1998) 2 SA 702 ZSC at 715 G - I
': ~
,,-=,,,#
~::;
»
;"'"
~ b1
i'
I,)
~ ~
o
~
p.U-llA,g:-
\\~gc.
4"RICP,\~~
'~
""
0
~
~
~0'X'v
""0M
1:,'5 'i' t/'
"",'~
ME ET 0
;;p."
..,~
en ~
.q