| |
|
BEFORE: |
CHAIRMAN: E.V.O. Dankwa
VICE CHAIRMAN: K. Rezag-Bara
COMMISSIONERS: A. Badawi El Sheikh, Isaac Nguema, N. Barney Pityana,
H. Ben Salem, Florence Butegwa, A. Raganayi Chigovera, Vera M.
Chirwa, Jainaba Johm |
| |
|
|
PermaLink: |
https://www.worldcourts.com/achpr/eng/decisions/2000.11.06_Sakwe_v_Cameroon.htm |
| |
|
|
Citation: |
Motale Zacharia Sakwe v. Cameroon,
Decision, Comm. 230/99 (ACmHPR, Nov. 06, 2000) |
|
Publications: |
IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on
Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoples�
Rights Extracted from the Commission�s Activity Reports 1994-2001,
at 69 (2002); (2000) AHRLR 64 (ACHPR 2000) |
|
|
| |
RAPPORTEUR
25th Session: Commssioner Dankwa
26th Session: Commssioner Dankwa
27th Session: Commssioner Dankwa
28th Session: Commssioner Dankwa
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The Complainant is Motale Zacharia Sakwe, a citizen of Cameroon.
2. The complaint was received at the Secretariat of the Commission on 4th
January 1999.
3. The complaint contains various information on the general state of human
rights in Lobe Town Community between 30th December 1996 and 27th September
1998. In the relevant part however, the Complainant alleges that on 15th
December 1996, at 1.30 a.m. in the night, he was abducted from his house by
the Divisional Officer for Mbonge Sub-Division accompanied by well armed
police and gendarmes officers. The same officers at the same time and in the
same way and manner also abducted the Complainant�s mother.
4. The Complainant also alleged that he was taken to the Police Post at
Mbonge and subsequently detained for three days.
5. His aged mother was also detained at the Gendarme�s Office for three
days.
6. The Complainant alleges further that during the detention, he was
tortured by being made to roll on the ground after being soaked with water
and sleeping under the sun for 12 hours, while his aged mother was stripped
naked and dumped into a pit.
7. The Complainant contends that as a result of the aforementioned
treatments, he has severe pains in his eyes, on his ribs and acute
headaches.
8. On 17th December 1996, the Complainant alleges that he was summoned to
the Divisional Officer�s office and asked to pay six thousand francs
(6,000CFA) before being released, to which he complied.
9. Throughout the period of their detention, they were not informed of the
nature of their offences, neither were they charged for the commission of
any crime.
COMPLAINT
10. The Complainant alleges violation of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the African
Charter
PROCEDURE
11. At its 26th ordinary session in Kigali, Rwanda, the Commission decided
to be seized of the communication and requested parties to furnish it with
additional information on the issue of exhaustion of local remedies.
12. On 24th January 2000, the Secretariat informed parties of the above
decision.
13. On 16th February 2000, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the
Embassy of the Republic of Cameroon in Dakar, informing it that the Note
Verbale and document attached had been forwarded to the Cameroonian Ministry
of External Relations for due consideration.
14. At its 27th ordinary session held in Algeria, the Commission examined
the case and deferred its further consideration to the 28th ordinary session
to enable the competent authorities of Cameroon respond to its request for
additional information on the issue of exhaustion of local remedies.
15. The decision was communicated to the parties on 12th July 2000.
16. On 28th August 2000, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the
Embassy of the Republic of Cameroon in Dakar acknowledging receipt of the
above letter, but pointing out that it would not be able to meet the
deadline for submission of the arguments on the admissibility of the case.
It therefore appealed for the case to be adjourned to the next session.
17. On 30th August 2000, the Secretariat replied to the said Note Verbale
pointing out that the request for such information had already been
communicated to the competent authorities of Cameroon on two separate
occasions, to which they had acknowledged receipt. Regarding their appeal
for adjournment, it was indicated that it was the prerogative of the
Commission to take such a decision, but promised to convey the request to
the Commission accordingly.
LAW
ADMISSIBILITY
18. Article 56 (5) of the Charter provides: Communications�shall be
considered if they: � are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any,
unless, it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged.
19. On the surface of the complaint, it appears that the Complainant did not
exhaust domestic remedies. The Commission noted further that the parties did
not respond to its requests for additional information on the issue of
exhaustion of local remedies, despite repeated reminders.
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS
The Commission declares the communication inadmissible.
Done at the 28th session held in Cotonou, Bénin 23rd October to 6th November
2000. |
|
