Open Discussion on the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights - organised by Coalition for an Effective African Court

Exposition of Expanded Case law Analyser

Presentation of Sudan Human Rights Report

51eme SESSION ORDINAIRE DE LA COMMISSION AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME ET DES PEUPLES, 12 AVRIL -02 MAI 2012

EXPLOSION DU DEPOT DE MUNITIONS DE MPILA A BRAZZAVILLE, REPUBLIQUE DU CONGO

DECLARATION DE L’ASSOCIATION POUR LES DROITS DE L’HOMME ET L’UNIVERS CARCERAL (ADHUC) & L’INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA (IHRDA), SUR LA VIOLATION DU DROIT A LA SECURITE

L’Association pour les droits de l’homme et l’univers carcéral (ADHUC) et L’Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), sont profondément bouleversés par le drame humain causé par l’explosion du dépôt des munitions de Mpila à Brazzaville, en République du Congo, le 04 mars 2012. En effet, cette tragédie n’est pas la première du genre en République du Congo,  moins encore sur le continent africain.

Pour mieux appréhender le contexte du tragique incident du 04 mars 2012, il est important de remonter à la période coloniale où pour des raisons stratégiques, la métropole avait installé des casernes à proximité des centres urbains. Après l’indépendance de la République du Congo en 1960 et avec la démographie sans cesse galopante, les casernes se sont retrouvées au plein cœur de grandes villes du pays, représentant un danger permanent pour les populations.  Bien que le gouvernement congolais ait pris la décision il y a quelques années de transférer les dépôts de munitions hors des centres urbains, cette décision n’a pas été traduite dans les faits.  Cela, malgré le fait qu’en 1994 à Pointe Noire et en  1997 à Brazzaville au camp de l’intendance, les explosions des dépôts de munitions ont causé des dégâts humains et matériels importants.

Le bilan de l’explosion du dépôt de munitions de Mpila et dont les détonations ont secoué Brazzaville, la capitale congolaise sur plusieurs kilomètres à la ronde, a été très lourd : environ 900 morts, plus de 1000 blessés et un nombre important des personnes sans abris. Cette explosion qui s’est produit dans la matinée du 04 mars 2012 aux environs de 8 heures et dont les détonations ont continué à se produire même plusieurs jours après l’incident, a plongé la population dans un état de psychose et de choc émotionnelle sans précédent.

Cette situation constitue une violation flagrante de l’article 23 de la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples qui consacre le droit des peuples à la sécurité. Bien que conscient du danger que représentait la présence du dépôt de munitions de Mpila au milieu des agglomérations, le gouvernement n’a rien fait pour prévenir la survenance du drame. Comme l’a si bien affirmé la Commission africaine elle-même, les normes relatives aux droits de l’homme ne contiennent pas seulement les limites au pouvoir d’Etat mais elles imposent aussi aux Etats une obligation positive de prévenir les violations des droits de l’homme.

De tout ce qui précède,  l’ADHUC et l’IHRDA prient la Commission africaine:
    D’exhorter le gouvernement de la République du Congo à prendre les mesures visant à accorder des réparations appropriées et l’attention nécessaire à toutes les victimes de l’explosion du 04 mars 2012 ou à leurs familles ;
    D’exhorter le gouvernement du Congo à prendre les mesures nécessaires pour éviter les dommages collatéraux de l’explosition du 04 mars et à transférer les dépôts des munitions se trouvant encore dans les centres urbains hors de ceux-ci;
    D’exhorter le gouvernement du Congo d’accélérer le processus de ratification de la Convention de Kampala sur les Personnes Déplacées Internes en Afrique ;
    Et enfin, à prendre en compte lors de l’examen des rapports périodiques ou des missions de terrain, la question et les risques des dépôts de munitions se trouvant dans les centres urbains.

IHRDA Statement on the Protective Mandate of the African Commission

The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) welcomes the creation of the Working Group on Communications mandate to address specific issues related to the protective mandate of the Commission.

In April 2011, at the 49 Ordinary Session, attention to protective mandate was admittedly, at its lowest as the Commission concluded its first ever ordinary session without considering matters related it its protection mandate. This situation has however changed significantly as the Commission has reinvigorated its attention to this mandate. Since November 2011, the Commission has also hastened its consideration of communications. In the last 3 sessions (50OS, 10EOS, 11EOS) a total of 18 communications have been finalised[1].

This renewed attention to protection activities could not come at a more apt time. 2011 saw unprecedented popular upheavals not only in the north but also in parts of west, central, east and south of Africa. In Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Sudan, Uganda, Gabon, Cameroon, Malawi amongst others, citizens took to the streets to demand their rights, rights which are enshrined in the African Charter that is legally binding on these states. More so, more human rights litigation is being registered in continental and economic community courts with the SADC Tribunal facing continued suspension for its firm assertion of human rights in Zimbabwe.

In addition, over the last 25 years of litigation before the African Commission, in 194 decisions covering over 400 communications, Article 7 which guarantees the right to fair trial remains the most complained of violation (94 of 194 decisions = 49%) and most violated right (50 of 73 decisions = 69%). 54% of communications filed before the African Commission fail to reach the merits stage. Moreover, all cases decided by the African Court have thus far featured applicants filing cases where the Court manifestly has no jurisdiction seems to indicate a great thirst, if not desperation for justice on the continent and regrettably, lack of sufficient knowledge of how to assert one’s rights through African human rights mechanisms.

As IHRDA and our partners in our joint “Statement on undue delays in the consideration of communications”[2] in May 2009 stated, “The [Commission’s] complaints procedure remains its strongest tool in the protection of the rights guaranteed in the African Charter. The Commission remains the most accessible and active mechanism in the African human rights system. As such it represents the primary recourse available to those subjected to human rights violations.”

The Commission’s role in remedying human rights abuses in Africa cannot be gainsaid. This is true not only for substantive law but also for the administration of the mechanisms. Any steps taken to ensure effective human rights protection are therefore welcome.

In particular, IHRDA would like to urge the Commission and in more so the Working Group on Communications to consider addressing the following concerns:

• notification of status of communications remains irregular and unreliable, and even when notification letters are received, we note a lack of detail necessary to facilitate our work/appropriate reaction.
• We continue to experience great difficulties in accessing information that should be public like approved texts of decisions in all official AU languages, resolutions and even the Terms of Reference of the WGC;
• Still difficult to know which cases will be handled next session (there is no publicly available causelist);
• the new reporting format as seen in 31AR (11 pages) where decisions, resolutions are neither annexed nor even mentioned in full number and title in the text of the report not only impedes access to information, an Article 9 (1) guarantee, but creates potential loopholes for decision enforcement;
• There are also an increasing number of instances where the Commission seemingly ‘decides’ but without ‘a written decision’, as in withdrawals, non seizures, etc, contrary to established practice;
• The Commission is yet to acknowledge receipt or respond to the joint letters sent by litigants on the question of the protective mandate.

In addition to the administrative concerns, active follow-up by the Commission on implementation of its decisions would go a long way in delivering remedies to victims, which is the reason they seek the Commission’s intervention.

[1] Seizure: nine (9) Communications; “Dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution”: three (3) Communications; Provisional measures: Two (2) Communications on Provisional Measures, none of which was granted; Admissibility: thirteen (13) Communications; Merits: Four (4) Communications; Withdrawal: (1) communication for withdrawal; Court referral: A second communication is being referred ; Oral hearing: I believe the Commission will hear some of us in oral audience at the 51^st OS; Implementation: One (1) Communication on implementation.

[2] Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), International Centre on Legal Protection of Human Rights (INTERIGHTS) & IHRDA, “Joint Statement On The Undue Delay In The Consideration Of Communications By The African Commission On Human And Peoples’ Rights” 45th Ordinary Session Of The African Commission On Human And Peoples’ Rights, May 2009.

51^st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 18 April- 02 May 2012, Banjul, The Gambia

IHRDA Statement on Extractive Industries and Human Rights in Africa

The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) wishes to congratulate the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission) for the establishment of the Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment and Human Rights Violations in Africa. We encourage the Working Group in its work to ensure greater protection of the right of all peoples to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources and to a general satisfactory environment favorable to their development, as provided for in articles 21 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The list of persistent human rights violations committed by those involved in the extractive industries sector, including by non-state actors impact negatively on communities in resource–rich areas.  These serious human rights violations include forced relocation and eviction of local communities, loss of their livelihood, destruction of the ecosystem and pollution to name but a few. Resources, namely oil, gas and minerals, have also brought political instability, revenue management challenges, corruption and increased social tension.

In most cases, impunity, weak judicial systems and gaps existing in the national legislations are the main causes of the persistence of these human rights violations. For example, the DRC government adopted Law No 007/2002 establishing the Congolese Mining Code in July 2002. The law asserted the primacy of mining permits over individual land titles. This has opened the door to several cases of forced relocations and evictions in the country with little safeguards and support for local communities. In most cases, minimal or no steps are taken to protect the right to education, health, housing, access to water or to alternative means of subsistence livelihood.

On the basis of the forgoing, IHRDA would like to urge the African Commission through its Working Group to:

• Pay particular attention to the persistent  human rights violations committed during forced relocations and evictions of local communities in the context of extractive industries, which has a serious impact on other fundamental rights;
• Provide adequate guidance to mineral-rich countries to improve their legislative and regulatory frameworks, build institutional capacity and strengthen governance in the extractive industries field.

The one and a half day meeting (13-14 April 2012) will bring together 15-20 experts/representatives of civil society from African countries to discuss and exchange on experiences of victims of systemic crimes in accessing justice at the national, sub-regional and international levels.

The meeting will also provide a platform for lawyers, activists and human rights defenders to discuss strategies for the way forward as they interact with a view to establishing a network of national and international civil society groups and experts to ensure that victims’ rights are effectively protected at the national, regional and international levels.

Download Forum programme here.

Legal aid in The Gambia: An introduction to law and practice

Access to justice is a fundamental human right. Legal aid is all about providing legal assistance to indigent people to protect their fundamental rights and obtain a fair hearing.

IHRDA is pleased to be at the forefront of advocacy for legal aid in The Gambia. IHRDA’s involvement in advocacy for legal aid in The Gambia is multi-pronged. This entailed working with different stake-holders, namely the Attorney General’s Chambers, the Bench and the Bar, civil society partners, lobbying for law-making and providing legal aid necessary for advancing stalled cases involving children before the Children’s Court in The Gambia.

After several years of collaboration with the AG’s Chambers, Bar and Bench in The Gambia, the Legal Aid Act of The Gambia was passed into law in November 2008. This publication provides information about the law on legal aid in The Gambia, how and where to access legal aid and also provides recommendations on how to render legal aid more effective. It is hoped that this publication will serve as a useful tool to all who need legal aid, as well as to those who provide legal aid.

The publication is accompanied by 3 leaflets which summarise the information on legal aid. They are available in English, Wolof and Mandinka.

Download ‘Legal aid in The Gambia’ – book

Download ‘Legal aid in The Gambia’ – leaflet

Download ‘Luwa la deemaroo kambiya kono’ – leaflet Mandinka

Download ‘Ndimbalu heehal miskin yi ci aatekaayu nguur gi ci biir Gambiya’ – leaflet Wolof

IHRDA will be covering the 51st Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on social media. Through our Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin accounts, we will keep you updated on statements, examination of state reports from Angola and Sudan, book launches, thematic discussions and other information on the events in Banjul surrounding the NGO Forum (Apr 14-16) and the 51^st Ordinary Session of the African Commission (Apr 18-May 2 2012).

Follow us on Twitter – http://twitter.com/#!/ihrdafrica

@IHRDAfrica #ACHPR51 #Banjul #humanrights

Like our page on Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/IHRDA

Connect with us on LinkedIn – http://www.linkedin.com/in/ihrda

In its first ever decision, 002/Com/002/09 IHRDA and OSJI (on behalf of children of Nubian descent in Kenya) v Kenya, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and
Welfare of the Child has found Kenya to have violated the rights of Nubian children to non-discrimination, nationality and protection against statelessness.

IHRDA provides this pamphlet summarising key points and recommendations of this historic decision.

Download leaflet here

See full decision on African Human Rights Case law Analyser

Want to know who we are and what we do, read through our new 8 page brochure.

Download here

Also joining the IHRDA Board are:

Soad Milad: a child protection and children’s rights specialist. She is the former Assistant Regional Director for Middle East and the Regional Educational Advisor for Middle East at SOS Kinderdorf International. She is currently a consultant for organisational support of Wataneya Society for the Development of Orphanages. Ms. Milad brings experience working on children’s issues as IHRDA seeks to develop its work on Child Rights issues on the African Continent. As we seek to develop our work in Arabic, she brings a much needed resource in that language to IHRDA. Ms. Milad holds a Masters degree in Business Administration from the American University in Cairo.

Katherine Mulhern: a Barrister at Law.  Ms. Mulhern is a Partner in Kaye Scholer’s Corporate Department. She is a New York-qualified and UK-qualified capital markets lawyer focusing on international equity and debt capital markets. Ms. Mulhern has a wide range of experience in primary and secondary equity securities issues and has worked both in the UK and internationally. Ms. Mulhern has worked on a series of high-profile insurance-related offerings in recent years. Prior to joining Kaye Scholer, Ms. Mulhern was head of the US capital markets practice at Hogan Lovells.

Gilles Cistac: Professor of law, Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM) in Maputo. He teaches and co-ordinates the Master programme in international human rights law and sits on various university governance bodies. He consults with civil society, international organisations and the Mozambican government in policy and statute development. He serves as Co-ordinator on the board of UEM’s Rev. Jur. da Faculdade de Direito (juridical review of the Faculty of Law) and is a visiting professor of law at University of Toulouse I, where he has earlier studied. He has authored numerous published journal articles and books. He retains a keen research interest in electoral, constitutional and administrative law. He speaks Portuguese, French and Spanish, with some Chinese, Italian and English.

The four new board members join Julia Harrington Reddy, Pascal Kambale, Justice Amina Augie and Dr David Padilla.

To read more about our Board of Directors, visit our site at http://www.ihrda.org/board/