Ahemad (Represented by Justice for Human Rights (JHR), and Aman Organization) v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 621-16)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The African Commission struck out the Communication for want of diligent prosecution. The Complainant failed to submit evidence and arguments on admissibility within two months as required by Rule 105(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and almost six years elapsed without any submission despite notification that the matter would be struck out.
Outcome
Communication struck out without determination on the merits due to Complainant's failure to prosecute
Facts
On 16 April 2016, the Secretariat received a Communication on behalf of Mr. Fadel El-Mawala Hosny Ahemad alleging violations of the African Charter by Egypt. The Complainants alleged that the Victim was arrested on 15 August 2013 by police and army forces from his workplace in Alexandria and detained in Burg Al Arab prison. They alleged fabricated charges including participation in a demonstration, disturbing public peace, and membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, resulting in case No. 27868 of 2014. The Complainants alleged the trial violated international human rights standards and that the Victim was sentenced to death, with the case referred to the Grand Mufti. The Commission was seized of the Communication on 09-18 June 2016 and requested submissions on admissibility within two months. The Complainants failed to respond. On 17 May 2021, the Secretariat notified the Complainants that the Communication would be struck out for want of diligent prosecution. Almost six years elapsed from the deadline without any submission from the Complainants.
Issues
- Whether the Communication should be struck out for want of diligent prosecution where the Complainant failed to submit arguments on admissibility within the prescribed time and for almost six years thereafter.
Orders
- Communication struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (14)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 8
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 19
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 60
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 61
- Rules of Procedure of the African Commission (2010) Rule 105(1)
- Rules of Procedure of the African Commission (2010) Rule 113
Cases cited (5)
- Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 612/16)
- Mohammed Abdel Hay Faramawy and 2 Ors v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communications 637/16 and 639/16)
- European Alliance for Human Rights (AED) and 3 Others v Egypt (Communication 544/15)
- Kofi Yamagnane v Togo (Communication 387/10)
- Miles Investments & 2 Others v Republic of Sierra Leone (Communication 623/16)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.