The
Facts
1. The complaint is
in two parts. The first, submitted by the Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de
l’Homme, alleges a number of serious and massive violations in Cameroon committed
by the present government. The Ligue alleges that the prison conditions in
Cameroon constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and that many people
have been arbitrarily arrested and detained in these conditions. Between 1984
and 1989 at least 46 persons were tortured and deprived of food in the Central
Prison of Yaoundé. Further violations consist in the repression of freedom
of expression, creation of special tribunals, denial of fair hearing, ethnic
discrimination, and massacres of the civil population.
2. The second part
relates to the situation of Mr Joseph Vitine, an ex-police officer. He stated
that he has been persecuted by his former colleagues since March 1990. Subsequent
to this submission Mr. Vitine re-submitted his case as a separate communication,
no. 106/93.
3. The government
of Cameroon responded in writing that the case of Mr. Vitine should be declared
inadmissible because the author did not appear to be in possession of his
full mental faculties. The government responded orally that the allegations
of the Ligue Camerounaise should be declared inadmissible because they are
posed in disparaging and insulting language.
Procedure
4. The communication
is not dated but was received from the Ligue Camerounaise just before March
1992. The Commission was seized of the communication at the 11th
Session.
5. The government
of Cameroon was notified of the communication on 8 April 1992. No response
was forthcoming. On 13 November 1992 another notification was sent.
6. As of the 19th
session, no information had been received from the government. The Commission
declared the communication as regards Mr. Vitine inadmissible.
7. On 17 May 1996
the Commission sent a letter to Mr. Vitine informing him that his communication
had been declared inadmissible at the 19th session.
8. At the 20th
session, a delegation of the government of Cameroon was present and submitted
a written response to the communication, dealing with the portion of the communication
submitted by Mr. Vitine, which had already been declared inadmissible. The
government delegation made an oral presentation concerning the allegations
of the Ligue Camerounaise. The Commission decided to request more information
from both the government and the complainant, and to postpone a decision on
the merits of the case. On 10 December 1996 the parties were informed of this
decision.
Law
9. Article 55.2 of
the Charter reads:
A
communication shall be considered by the Commission if a majority of its members
so decide.
10. This power of the
Commission to consider communications naturally includes the lesser power
to decline to hear them.
11. The allegations
submitted by Mr. Vitine were in 1993 submitted separately to the Commission
and registered as communication 106/93. The information in this communication
did not give evidence of prima facie violations of the African Charter. For
this reason the Commission declared the communication inadmissible.
12. Article 56.3 of
the Charter reads:
Communication
relating to Human and Peoples’ Rights referred to in Article 55 received by
the Commission, shall be considered if they are not written in disparaging
or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions
or to the Organisation of African Unity.
13. The allegations
submitted by the Ligue Camerounaise are of a series of serious and massive
violations of the Charter. The communication contains statements such as:
‘Paul Biya must respond to crimes against humanity’, ‘30 years of the criminal
neo-colonial \regime incarnated by the duo Ahidjo/Biya’, ‘regime of torturers’,
and ‘government barbarisms’. This is insulting language.
14. In addition to
the requirements of form, the Commission has a clear precedent that communications
must contain a certain degree of specificity, such as will permit the Commission
to take meaningful action. (See the Commission’s decision on communication
104/94, 109 - 126/94 Center for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers/Algeria
et al.)
FOR
THESE REASONS THE COMMISSION
Declares the communication inadmissible.
Taken at the 21st Ordinary Session, Nouakchott, Mauritania,
April 1997