The case of Achille Benoit Zogo Andela v. Cameroon. Views of the Human Rights Committee of December 18, 2023. Message No. 3838/2020.
In 2020, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. The complaint was subsequently communicated to Cameroon.
The author claimed that the authorities of the State party, in violation of previously accepted
The Human Rights Committee conducted a trial without ending his arbitrary detention. The author also claimed that, in connection with his arbitrary detention, the trial against him was in itself a "procedural abuse". The Committee found a violation of the author's rights under paragraphs 1, 3 (b), (c), (e) and 5 of article 14 of the Covenant.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, the author of the communication was Achille Benoit Zogo Andela, a citizen of Cameroon. The author claimed that the authorities of the State party, in violation of the previously accepted Views of the Human Rights Committee, conducted judicial proceedings without ending his arbitrary detention. The author also claimed that, in connection with his arbitrary detention, the trial against him was in itself a "procedural abuse". The author claimed that the State party had violated his rights under articles 2 and paragraphs 1, 3 (b), (c), (e) and 5 of article 14 of the Covenant. The Committee concluded that the facts before it indicated a violation by the State party of the author's rights under paragraphs 1, 3 (b), (c), (e) and 5 of article 14 of the Covenant.
The Committee's legal position: According to article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, States parties are obliged to examine in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant against themselves and their representatives and provide the Committee with all information at their disposal. In the absence of a response from the State party, the author's allegations should be treated with confidence to the extent that they are sufficiently substantiated (paragraph 4 of the Views).
The burden of proof should not fall solely on the author of the communication, especially since the author and the State party do not always have equal access to elements of evidence and often only the State has the necessary information (paragraph 6.2 of the Considerations).
The Court must present itself as impartial in the eyes of a reasonable observer (paragraph 6.3 of the Considerations).
The accused must be guaranteed access to documents and other evidence, to all materials that the prosecution plans to present at trial against the accused, or justifying the accused (paragraph 6.4 of the Considerations).
In accordance with article 14, paragraph 3 (c), of the Covenant, everyone has the right to be tried without undue delay. The Committee also recalled that the justification for delay in criminal proceedings should be determined on a case-by-case basis (paragraph 6.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee recalled that article 14, paragraph 3 (e), guarantees the right of persons accused of a crime to interrogate witnesses testifying against them or to have these witnesses questioned, and the right to summon and interrogate their witnesses under the same conditions as exist for witnesses testifying against them, and that this The guarantee is an important element of the principle of equality of competitive opportunities (paragraph 6.6 of the Considerations).
A review that is limited to the formal or legal aspects of a conviction without any consideration of the facts is insufficient under the Covenant (paragraph 6.7 of the Views).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it was taken into account that during the trial the court did not restrain either the manifestations of hostility towards the applicant from those present, nor the racist remarks of the jury (whose composition was unbalanced in terms of race). During the hearing on July 13, 2018, the lawyers of the civil plaintiff inflicted racist insults on the author's lawyer, while the presiding judge, who supervised the hearing and had the authority to give effect to the complaint of the author's lawyer in connection with this incident, did not react to this situation in any way. The Committee also noted the author's claim that the court... rejected his request to hear sworn testimony and that the presiding judge decided to disregard his defense strategy, unfairly believing that his own testimony was not given under oath, whereas the author...He clearly stated during the hearing that he would state his preferences in a written explanation, which would be read out during the hearing and attached to the case. The Committee considered that in this case, hostility towards the accused, racist remarks during the hearing and the lack of appropriate sanctions on the part of the presiding judge overseeing the hearing, as well as the refusal to rule on the author's petitions to dismiss the presiding judge and the judges who considered the case, and an unjustified rejection of the author's defense strategy during the hearing Doubts are raised about the impartiality of the court, and, consequently, such actions, apparently, constituted a violation of the author's rights, provided for in article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant (paragraph 6.3 of the Views).
The Committee took note of the author's statement that the refusal of the Special Criminal Court to hand over to him and his lawyers the case file, including the civil action on the basis of which it was initiated, did not allow him to properly prepare his defense. The Committee stressed that this formality was also an important aspect of the principle of equality of arms (paragraph 6.4 of the Views).
The Committee took note of the author's statement that the preliminary investigation in the case lasted more than 18 months, whereas according to Law No. 2012/011, this period should not exceed 6 months from the date of receipt of the prosecutor's submission on the preliminary investigation. The Committee also took into account the claim that the law established a 30-day period from the date of the decision to transfer the case to the court before the hearing, but the author had to wait for his case to be considered by a Special Criminal Court for five years. The Committee noted the author's argument that, in addition to the violation of the time limits of the proceedings, as a result of which he spent eight years in pre-trial detention, the statute of limitations of the alleged crimes should be taken into account, as well as the disappearance of the co-defendant, a number of witnesses who could testify in his favor, and some accounting documents of an enterprise that has not been operating for more than ten years..... In the Committee's opinion, the period from the beginning of the preliminary investigation on March 30, 2011 to the hearing on October 12, 2016, later postponed to July 25, 2017, during which the author was held in pre-trial detention, unable to be released on bail (especially since the final decision on the author's guilt was eventually only made November 28, 2018), that is, almost eight years since the beginning of the proceedings in the case, was unreasonably long (paragraph 6.5 of the Considerations).
The Committee took note of the author's allegations that the investigating judge in the case allowed him to interrogate three witnesses previously heard during the judicial investigation only during the hearing on 13 March 2018, that the Special Criminal Court heard witnesses in the absence of the author and in the absence of his lawyer, and that, in addition During the consideration of the case, the court did not allow the author to call witnesses who could give exculpatory testimony. In addition, prosecution witnesses were present at all hearings, and no measures were taken to prevent them from communicating with each other, following the course of the debate, colluding and adapting their testimony to the circumstances of the case (paragraph 6.6 of the Considerations).
The Committee drew attention to the author's claims that, upon appeal in cassation, the prosecutor can obtain a review of the factual side of the case and the legal aspects of the conviction, whereas the judges of the court of Appeal cannot review the conviction on the basis of the factual side of the case, even if the facts that served as the basis for the conviction by the court of first instance are based on witness testimony received with violations, and that because of this, the author cannot exercise his right to, that his conviction and sentence be reviewed by a higher court in accordance with the law, in violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant (paragraph 6.7 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation by the State party of the author's rights under paragraphs 1, 3 "b", "c", "e" and 5 of article 14 of the Covenant (paragraph 7 of the Views).