African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
154. The Respondent State submits thaf when one considers the kind of
weapons allegedly used, it is clear thatlthe lattackers were not state agents,
and neither does the Complainant claim that these were State agents,
therefore their action should not be impujed to the Respondent State. It
further contends that the Communica~ion does not contain any evidence
tha.t the Victim reported the incident tf' the police who had failed to take
action,
155.
In view of the foregoing, the Respondent
State submits that the
CO:::::~:~:::St::::i~::p~::~nt slate,s,s~g~~:;:~~n
the
I
' "
....
AllegedviolationofArticle ofthe ,,,,~,,,,,,,te~';'if~t;~~'i"":;,S~;;,
Merits
2
Afri
156. In response to the Respond~nr,);S
s
ission, "fq~$.}3bmplainant
contends t~at th~ injustices urd~~~t~nii .g. ' uggle ag~!Rst colonialism
are not at Issue In the pres~nt COl.1"J+l)~mcatI
' " he Complainant submits
that it has neither alleged hor inferred,lhat the
form program in its
entirety was ill foun~~,d'ar ~~ec~ssar~. :~~"l
'
157. The Compla,ip~~::;~~~ates th~~;,;,t,he
~ict~~<,vas not a beneficiary of the
appropriation q£:ilandby the coloriiC\!!~tk,~aving bought his first farm after
independence i~~;t983 through aj"loah;:ip15tCiined
from Standard Chartered
B~n~ (ref~rred f~;~;~~St~nbic BatJ.tk).';
1he Compl~inan.t su~mits that the
V.ICb~....
;.,n.J.oye~.tJ:i~1:~~:~:r.,;.;.~.1.n
..
..g...s....o...
f!'l~hepel~pl~
..
of Chlmammam~ who named
him :Bac4ed,u Indlcatll}g:,~~~ygltreness
with the local community.
;::,~;'< ';,:" ;~;' :', L .'
x;",;;~,l,y;;J
I:
<,
158. The Cq~p!~iria~t'.~1f.t6her avers that the fact that the Respondent State
was attemgting to ~~riect historical rrongs does not exempt it from
paying compensation to the Victim, as the critical question is the effect of a
government'sacj, not its subjective intehtion.
'
, ,~,
I
159. The Complainant submits that it i~ disingenuous for the Respondent
State to dismiss the rape of the Victim(s employees as 'shear lawlessness
by some opportunist'. The Complainarlt contends that while these crimes
may not have been perpetrated by a g~vernment official acting in ~S:"f~~-"
capacity as such, the failure of the Respondent State to investi~Z~'Sl!4T
and pro~ecute these perpetrators amounts to complicity in the
,,(?n
of the crimes.
i
Alleged violation of Article 3 (1) and (2) of the Mrican Charter
I
Ai/nIti'
~;,'\
<i::\
1(8
(F;j
\\~.~~
':='~~p.0! 0~
~ ~y-;r,":
\~,""'\, ~ ~&&IOty MRICP.\ ""<V<:)'<<v-0,/
- g,.!f/ "
"" (i-t
s'(~/
, ~MME
Ei ;:S/
Page 34 of::55~