Good morning honorable members of the court, my

name is Mr. Frew Kasaye and together with my

colleague Mr. Nuru beyene we appear on behalf of the

applicant in this matter. (the African commission)

Today in our time before this honorable court my

colleague and I will present four issues, I will address

the preliminary part and the issues of detainees at

paradise detention facility within the first 13 minutes

and within the remaining minutes Mr. Nuru will

address the issues of National Union of Gay and

Lesbians and Trokosi Custom and finally he will pray

To begin with our first submission the commission

submits that this court has jurisdiction over the

respondent.

Pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Court Protocol this

Court has the authority to interpret and apply the

African charter and those ratified instruments to the

current communication.

Accordingly, The respondent has ratified African

Charter, African Court Protocol and other treaties

relevant to the present case. Thus, the court may

exercise its jurisdiction over the respondent.

Regarding respondents withdrawal from the Court

Protocol, the Applicant contends that first of all, since

the court protocol does not have express provision on

withdrawal pursuant to article 56(1) VLCT the

protocol is not subject to withdrawal.

Again, if the court found the withdrawal possible, as

per article 56 (2) the withdrawing state must give not

less than twelve months notice of its intention to

withdraw from the Protocol. But in instant case, this

period has not yet lapsed.

Last but not least, whatever the effects of withdrawal,

as per article 70 of VCLT the withdrawal from a treaty

does not affect legal situation of the parties prior to its

withdrawal.

Finaly the applicant submits that the court may decide

on its jurisdiction as per 3 (2) of the court protocol.

May it please the court I will proceed to my

submission on admissibility.
Regarding addmissiblity issues, As per

Articles 6(2) of African court protocol, the

admissibility of communications by the

Court is governed according to provisions

of article 56 of the African Charter. Among

others this provision requires exhaustion of

all local remedies before the

communication are submitted before the

court.
In simmilar manner the African commission has

stablished a very important jurisprudence on this

principle in jawara v the Gambia case, which

state that, where the remedies are not available,

effective and sufficient to the complainant the

complainant is not required to exhaust them.

In the instant case the applicant submits that

though the cases were not brought before all

levels of domestic court, the applicant contends

that this exceptions may apply.

Concerning the claim of PDF detainees, the High

Court and Court of Appeal of the respondent

state rejected the claim on the ground of national

security and subsequent to the decision of these

Courts, the Supreme Court has also rejected

several similar application on behalf of these

detainees on similar ground as that of previous

two courts.

Thus, the applicant did not approached the

supreme court since it is obvious that there is no

prospect of success before that Court.

And according to the jurisprudences of african

commision in Jawara Case the complainant is

not requered to exhaust local remedies if the

remedies are unavailable.

Concerning the issue of NUGAL, the right is

neither recognized nor acknowledged by the

domestic laws of the respondent or by its

judiciary.
At this point the applicant would like to recal the

dicion of african commision in SERAC v

Nigeria case which states that, Where a right is not

acknowledged or covered by domestic law, it is

unlikely that the case will be heard and also there

cannot be effective remedial action or any remedial

action at all.

and the applicant submits that it is not requered

to exhaust local remedies in this case.

Concerning trokosi practice, though RWB did

not approched domestic courts, according to

jurisprudence of the African commission, in

Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum

v Zimbabwe, While recognising that the

protection of human rights in a country lies with

the government of that country, it confirmed

that, even if the victims did not institute any

domestic judicial action, if state is presumed to

be sufficiently aware of the situation prevailing

in its own territory it holds the ultimate

responsibility of harnessing the situation.

And again according to the decisions of the

commision in Centre on Housing Rights and

Evictions v The Sudan, Where the number of

victims are many and the nature of the alleged

abuses are serious local remedies become

unavailable. In the instant case there around

7000 thousands victims and the violation are of

serious nature.

Thus, for the above reasons, the Applicant

humbly requests this court to declare this

communication admissible
May it please the Court I will proceed to the

issues of detanees at PDF.

With regard to detanees at PDF popularly

Known as Hell on Earth, the commission

submits that, circumstances leading to and the

conditions under which the inmates of PDF

are detained violated the African Charter and

other treaties ratified by the respondent.

At first place, the arrest detention of young

Malinkese Violates of the right to liberty,

security of the person and freedom from

arbitrary detention which is guaranteed under

article 6 of African charter and article 9 of

ICCPR

legally speaking the young people who fled to

Respondent state are refugees and the fact that

they have committed crimes cant make them

terrorists.
They fled as a result of widespread killing,

indiscriminate shooting, and arbitrary arrest by

the government of Malinke because of their

membership to the group and their political

opinion.

It follows that the respondent has the obligation

to grant asylum and secure settlement for the

refugees pursuant to article 12 (3) of African

charter and article 2 and 6 of OAU refugee

convention.
Contrary to these international standards, RoK

has conducted a widespread and arbitrary arrest

and detention of refugees under the pretext of

global fight and cooperation against terrorism

which is against the right to liberty and security

of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest

stipulated under article 6 and 9 of African

Charter and ICCPR respectively.

Secondly, the respondent violated fair trial

rights of the destinies which is guaranteed

under article 7 1 (d) of the African charter and

article 14 of ICCPR.

Your excellences', according to article 9(2) of

ICCPR and as explained under guidelines on fair

trila in africa, upon arrest anyone shall be

promptly informed, in a language he or she

understands, of any charges against him or her.

And Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal

charge shall be brought promptly before the

court and tried within reasonable period of time

or release pending trial as stipulated under article

7 1(d) of African Charter and artile 9 (3) of

ICCPR.
In clear contravention of this provisions, In the

instatant case the respondent has detained this

individuals for more than six months in some

cases and more than fifteen months with out any

Charge and trial. Your excelencies, to your

surprise some of the prisoners have been in

detention for more than 15 months, with no

indication of when they might be tried or set free.

Your honours, This is clear violation of fair trial

rights of deatnees.
Moreover, the respondent violated the right of

the detainees to be tried by impartial and

independent tribunal and the right not be tried by

military court by trying and convicting about

150 of the PDF detainees by General Court

Martial.

According to the african commmison in law

office of Ghazi Suleiman V Sudan, trial of

civilians by military court violates violates the

fundamental principle of fair trial and judicial

independence provided under art. 7 and 10 of the

Charter.
The commission also contends that continued

remand of prisoners and pre-trial detention

violates the right to be presumed innocenct

stipulated under article 7(1)(b) of african charter

and article 14 (2) of ICCPR.

With regard treatment of detanees the

commission submits that, the respondent

violated the right to freedom from torture,

cruel and inhuman treatment which is

guaranteed under articles 5 African charter

and 7 ICCPR and which is absolutely

protected by international human rights

instruments and also part of jus cogens.

In this regard there are sufficient evidences from

the reports of the media which overheared sinior

army officer authorizing an act, NGOs to this

effect and mental condition of the detanees.

Thus, the Applicant submits that the Respondent

acted in contravention to its obligations under

articles 5 and 7 of the African Charter and

ICCPR respectively.
Finally, the commission submits that the

respondent violated the rights of migrants by

arbitrarily arresting, detaining and collective

expelling migrants against their will in

contravention to article 6 and 12 (5) of African

charter, 22 of ICRMW and article 9(1) of

ICCPR. Which is also against the principle of of

nonrefulment.
And the right of children's of

migrant workers to get nationality

at birth in the state where they

were born regardless of the

nationality of their parents