African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
206. The Co~plaina~t alleges a violatio, of Article 7 (1) (d) of the African
Charter which provides for:
Ii'
(d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or
tribunal
207. The Complainant raises the allegati on that members of the Privileges
Committee were judges in their cause, as the majority were members of
ZANU PF, an aggrieved party, in breac of the rules of natural justice. The
Complainant argues that the Victim' J case ought to have been heard
according to the rules guiding a competent court of law, rather than by the
mere moving of a motion setting out the allegati9l}.£pllowed by a debate
and voting. In response, the Respondtnt Sta~~ orlt~~""~that the Victim
was charged with contempt of Parliament an . ~t ZA ltk, PF, and argues
that the
of Parliament is S.U1.'...:g.., en.:eriS,
a.s;!J~.'.;' c.h.;!fd
court
of jurisdiction
law.
;
.. oes not sitl' as a
"
208. Before delving into the sa:~ci£i2s':,·:,
of t~ep above' ''', merits, the
Commission must first addres/~il~m$,
Co~pl,~i30fl:nt's argume"j,.' with respect
to the standard of proof nece~'~ctrYIin':'f(Gt!TinaI cases. Indeed, the
Commission agrees wit!J<,the Com:p!airant tfl~t;\thi~ standard is 'proof
beyond reasonable douDH:';~~wev:r;,:;i
:l1~cleat ,\Vnat point this seeks to
buttress, as the alleged incid;~i]:t,,.~aswitri~~§,~d:JJynumerous members of
Parliament and has not. at any'~:~~p,tbe~n d~'@Ci b~ the Complain~n:. The
standard of proof - which relates-only to the veracity of the facts In Issue,
has unquestionably been satisfied. Th~~f;if{tosay, there could have been no
reasonable doubt that the Complainant committed the acts of which he
was accused.
~
•
A"
209. The'.. u~'therefore carr-be broadly addressed in two questions: (1)
whether(:'~DePriY:il~ges Committee con~tituted a tribunal for the purposes
of trying £~3.r?eomplai~a'nt; and (2) w~~t~er the principles of fair trial as
guaranteed ;;,!pnder Article 7 of the African Charter were adhered to,
notwithstandingthat
ZANU PF was in
majority.
re
210. Drawing inspiration from the j~risprudence of the ECtHR, the
Commission notes that in Belilos v SWitzerland the ECtHR held that "a
tribunal is characterised in the substantive sense of the term by its judicial
function, that is to say determining m~tters within its competence on the
basis of rules of law and after proceedings conducted in a prescri~
manner ... "70 In view of this, the Com~ission observes that sectioy;~~~~4~~"
of the Privileges Act describes the jurisdiction and compl~~G\' of
0"i-;,
Parliament in handling cases of contem t as follows: "a court [w_,;PJ~~~h]
a..I~t(...~:;?\\
l~Sl~~....Ul lI'~\
e 0
'')
,u
\'~.s.'-0'
\
I
(
0
J-
altau'up,
~
I,~" ~""jI
.~~~
Belilos v Switzerland ECtHR (29 April 1988) Appl cation 10328/83 para 64; Deltj 'CfJlf2y
ECtHR (15 October 1991) Series A No 210, Application .13057/87 paras 39 to 40,
70
.'i,
~,,;~.)'
:;1
Pag~
p,
Ul
fv00 0
x.<:)
oSlO
Q\(,
I
_,
~
(jJ ,;
l
jI!-
(~i~R'CP.\~
~x--v:~l
,.,.... MME sr \)'i:.S :;,,,/"
'~.~~,,~
..~~~-6.rr