PR
AC
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rig,hts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Unai Parot v. Spain that the obligation to ensure a prompt and impartial
investigation does not depend on the subrilission of a formal complaint.s!
It is sufficient for torture or ill-treatrhent to have been alleged by the
victim.s- In view of this, the comrniss~on considers that given the hostile
invasions and attacks the Victim experi1enced following the announcement
of his candidacy for MDC from May 20eO to January 2005, the Respondent
State cannot claim ignorance of the incidents alleged in the absence of a
formal complaint. The Commissiori also notes the Complainant's
averments in paragraph 10 above that t~e incidents were documented and
a complaint submitted to the Minister of State Security, Minister of Home
Affairs and Head of Agritex. This wak not disH~f~,~t;!BY
the Respondent
State
,'~:ir ·'ci.ai:r>..
1
..
196. T~g
into consideration the abo e ":l;~~~\ll",:,~!~SionfindS
that the failure to effectively invest~gah~'~t1i~"vlCi!;?;m~
illtreatment of the Victim and his.' wife amounts to /"a~~:violation of the
Respondent State's obligation u~cler
5 bE' the Af;i'ci'~~ieharter. The
Commission further consider~;cf~~t>,~sit pe'#'qi!ls to the allei~ation of extrajudicial killings and the ~~~e of fhe':0¥~ctim;'S';:::~mploye~s,
~uch averments
ought to have been the .B.BBJ.ect
of a s)PI~!,ate Communication on behalf of
a:ssa:uit~i:l~nd
AfiiclF
the affected persons, to'prhy:~.~..~ a ,~~tai1e4~'~.
,a.'.',r,
"r,a.
ti:y.eof these incide~ts and
the names of the' alleged V'1qf~tp.S. In the},:a,;b~,enceof these details, the
Commission is not in a pdsition':fo:.wake a fhiding in this regard.
197. Regarding the alleged assault at ili~'~C::lice
station when the Victim was
arrested on 9 October 2002 in Mutate, ~he Commission maintains that the
specifiS,,?etails of the assault wa~ not s~ated and so it becomes difficult to
make ~,ftbl:iil1gof torture in this-regard.
'.
-,
'""f;.t."
'~,},,"
'::C;}!
:~
-.
-
_,',
~._., ,~>'
'.
198. The C~!llElain~l1jt.f~~ther contends tha~ the punishment imposed by
the Privileg¢s"COmrrl:ittee (15 months imprisonments with hard labour, 3
months of';.f:,which was suspended)
was inhuman
and grossly
disproportionate. to the seriousness df the offence committed by the
Victim, when other non-custodial Ipunishment would have been
appropriate. It is important to note that ~ custodial sentence, once inherent
in or incidental to lawful sanctions, cannot ordinarily be said to constitute
torture, inhuman or degrading treatmerit. However, the emerging position
under international law favours the id~a that a grossly disproportionate
sentence could constitute cruel, inhUlhan and degrading punishment.j,
Most notably, the European Court ofl Human Rights (ECtHR) h",~q;VMA~.
/:Z'" c,RE.,ARI4/
.'7._c}v ":>":;
I
i~
Communication 6/1990, Henri Unai Parot v. Spain, .(2 May 1995) UNHR comml~~ a
Torture, U.N. Doc. Aj50j44at62
(1995) para 10.5.
62 As above.
t ~ '6
61
l~
'" ct.."
.o~'_,:.
O,,() \
<';,
-
E{~[~.
"1."'<i. ~
Page.
4 of.
'''i,
c.
f:, <1'%\
i2::; £
~,d..1
& (/)t
~\..)_\..)p..
,...
4"RICP.\~
Q"
~"?
r.:,<:J
~
~\)<l.
1
",",.~~:::,~<~,'