AC
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Alleged violation of Articles 7 of the AfriJan Charter
,
I
98. The Complainant
submits that the proceedings conducted by the
Privileges Committee of the 4th Parliament of Zimbabwe violated the
Victim's right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court or
adjudicating body as prescribed in Arti~le 7 of the African Charter.
99. The Complainant submits that in ALnesty International, Comiie Loosli
Bachelard, Lawyers' 'Committee for Huma~ Rights, Association of Members of the
Episcopal Conference of East Africa v Sudan the CO!ll.1:l)~~~ipn
held that all the
provisions of Article 7 of the African :Charte+,~;M~~"fuu.hlally
dependent,
and where the right to be heard is in£~inged~'":Q!b:!
vio\~fions may occur,
such as detentions being rendered arbitrar . Espec;ian~>B>~p>siti~e
is the
definition of "competent", which enco I
acets'~:~i~h"cl~::~ii~,':~S:¢p~rtise
of the judges and the inherent j]¥.
of t
laws':;'~i,~er which they
operate" .39
"
"'"',,S,\;,
",l
;,,:1':
.,
"
.",.. <'"
•~~" .~:;.
"\.-,~,:,,>.
•
.:.
<'
The Complainant argye{ thdt(,~£ the
ent Co~unication,
the
Victim's right to have Dls~;;causehea~ij;:~was
by the fact that the
Privileges Committe~tri\~11¥~:~f0m.g,9§~~~tLmem,f~.ers
of the ruling party,
100.
~!
~~N~o~::n;!il;lr'~~S~:c'
,IJer~;, ~~~~),:~t~~;:~~:e;::;
which the Vicfi~, belonged. The
'~~laJnant submits that as a result of
this compositio Jhe Privileges ~o~tt~e
was biased and retributive in
their application ';the law.
;~
.
~~~
'\'
ALi
Th~:~"?,~R~~i~anf ~~'~I~~P!nits tH(atthe Respondent State ~ay. argue
that wh.'~n"<E~a!ll9;ment
IS dealing WIth contempt offences, It IS not
exercising-a criihiqaL'J?~.civil jurisdiction, rather a sui generis jurisdiction
expressly authoris~d'By':'the Constitutidn of Zimbabwe. The Complainant
however contends that the former Con~titution of Zimbabwe in so far as it
permitted Parliament to be judge in its bwn case, is in violation of Article 7
of the African Charter.
:
101.
I
The Complainant submits that the 4th Parliament of Zimbabwe
imposed a criminal penalty of 12 months imprisonment with hard labour,
without meeting the burden of proof n~cessary in criminal matters, which
is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It Avers that the Victim should have
been tried by a competent court of la~, where due process would, ~~~'~\\,
102.
~
c:rt£.IAR/4r
I~~
39
Communication
48/90-50/91-52/91-89/93
It!
- Amnesty International, Comite Loosl{iach
Law_yers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of
Africa v Sudan para 62.
..0.::: ~';'
":>~
O.<l~
ardi:c.;" '
III ~~
<(0 \
1Mem bers of the Episcopal confef'~ce 0 Eas: <!::J
s
;,'" ~
Page" 2 o~
~\~
\
rt-
-;.,
"
c-.
"~
~ ~~~
i5;;i
UA
,g:
~R$J II.
AU'
....
<;:"J<4""RICP.\
~-0
ItOMI\1E ET O€.S \'
~"'~...-~-
>
'
.:
I
'
'