On October 23, 2018, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee.

Заголовок: On October 23, 2018, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee. Сведения: 2024-07-05 05:05:38

Karim Mays Wade against Senegal. Views of the Human Rights Committee of October 23, 2018, Communication No. 2783/2016.

In 2016, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Senegal.

The author claimed that article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant had been violated, since the procedural law relating to the Court for Combating Illicit Enrichment did not allow for the review of the conviction and punishment by a higher court.

The Committee's legal position is that each State party should organize its judicial system as it sees fit, and the Committee does not attach importance to the specific form and system chosen (See: H.K. v. Norway (CCPR/C/112/D/2004/2010), paragraph 9.3; Reid v. Jamaica, paragraph 14.3.) if the legislation of the State party provides for procedures for review by a higher court of the conviction and punishment of any person convicted of a crime. However, the Committee recalls that, although [the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] does not require a retrial of the facts in this case (See: Rolando v. Philippines (CCPR/C/82/D/1110/2002), para. 4.5; H.K. v. Norway, para. 9.3.), a procedure is required to effectively and substantially review the conviction and evaluate the evidence and facts, and not limit itself to considering only the legal aspects (paragraph 12.2 of the Considerations) (See: Gomez Vasquez v. Spain, paragraph 11.1.).

The Committee recognizes the importance of the legitimate goal of combating corruption for States, but also emphasizes that it must be conducted in accordance with the rules of procedure and the right to a fair trial (paragraph 12.5 of the Views).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee noted that the Court for Combating Illicit Enrichment, which found the author guilty and convicted him, makes decisions in open session and on the basis of an adversarial procedure in the first and last instance and its decisions in accordance with article 17 of Law No. 81-54 can be appealed in cassation by the convicted by a person or prosecutor's office under the conditions provided for by Resolution No. 60-17 of September 3, 1960, concerning the organic law on the Supreme Court. The Committee also stressed that the decisions of the Commission of Inquiry at the Court for Combating Illicit Enrichment are not subject to appeal under article 13 of the same law. He took note of article 2 of Organic Law No. 2008-35, which provides that the Supreme Court does not consider cases on the merits, unless otherwise provided by law. He also took note of the reform of the Criminal Procedure Code of 23 September 2008. on the basis of Law No. 2008-50, which introduced the right of appeal in criminal cases in addition to the cassation appeal, and noted that this reform does not apply to Court decisions on combating illegal enrichment (paragraph 12.3 of the Considerations).

From the ruling of August 20, 2015, it was seen that the Supreme Court did not evaluate the evidence and facts used by the Court to Combat Illegal Enrichment. In the light of the above, the Committee could not agree with the State party's argument that the cassation appeal to the Supreme Court constituted a review by a higher court in accordance with article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant, and referred to its general comment No. 32, according to which a review dealing only with formal or legal aspects of the indictment a sentence without regard to [the factual circumstances of the case] is not sufficient under the Covenant (paragraph 12.4 of the Considerations).

The Committee's conclusions: The facts reveal a violation by the State party of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant (paragraph 13 of the Views).



© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.