The case of Jean Emmanuel Candem Fumbi v. Cameroon. Views of the Human Rights Committee of July 13, 2022. Communication No. 2825/2016.
In 2016, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. The complaint was subsequently communicated to Cameroon.
The State party has not justified in any way the excessive length of the proceedings: the appeal against the decision of 26 March 2014, which was considered for more than eight years. In the opinion of the Human Rights Committee, there has been a violation of the Covenant.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, the author claimed that he was a victim of a violation of the right to be tried by a court without undue delay.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant, everyone has the right to be tried without undue delay (paragraph 7.3 of the Opinion).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it has taken note of the allegations submitted by the author of the communication, according to which his appeal against the decision of 26 March 2014 is still under judicial review, whereas criminal proceedings against him began on 9 May 2013, that is, more than seven years ago; and (b) in three other complaints, No decision has been made on it since May 2013. The Committee took note of a document from the registry of the Court of Appeal, according to which no appeal hearing was held on 2 February 2016 and, consequently, the appeal against the court order of 26 March 2014 is still pending. The Committee recalled that the State party had not provided a copy of the court order of 2 February 2016. The Committee noted that, according to the court order submitted by the author, on 1 September 2016, the court found the author guilty of two of the three charges to which he referred. The State party has acknowledged that the third charge is still pending (paragraph 7.2 of the Opinion).
The State party has in no way justified the excessive length of these proceedings: the appeal against the decision of 26 March 2014, which has been pending for more than eight years, as well as the long period between the indictment of the author in May 2013 and the absence of the announcement of the decision of the court of first instance after more than nine years (paragraph 7.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation by the State party of article 14, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 8 of the Views).