Wakilii

Guehi v United Republic of Cote D'Ivoire Intervening (Application No. 001-2015)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2018] AfCHPR 19 · 2018 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of fair trial rights and other human rights following conviction for murder and death sentence in Tanzania
Decision
Application partly allowed; violations of right to be tried within a reasonable time and right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment established; moral damages awarded; conviction and sentence upheld; Applicant remains in custody

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 Court held that Tanzania violated Armand Guehi's right to be tried within a reasonable time and his right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by depriving him of food during detention. The Court dismissed claims regarding lack of interpreter, access to lawyer, consular assistance, improper investigation, presumption of innocence, and property rights. The Court declined to quash the conviction or order release, finding the violations did not fundamentally affect the fairness of the trial. The Court awarded USD 2,500 in moral damages.

Outcome

Application partly allowed; violations of right to be tried within a reasonable time and right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment established; moral damages awarded; conviction and sentence upheld; Applicant remains in custody

Facts

Armand Guehi, an Ivorian national, moved to Tanzania in May 2004 as a dependant of his wife who worked for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. He was arrested on 6 October 2005 in connection with his wife's disappearance and charged with her murder on 18 October 2005. He was first charged on 18 October 2005, but the State Attorney entered a nolle prosequi on 24 August 2007 due to procedural mistakes, after which he was charged afresh. The trial commenced on 1 March 2010. On 30 March 2010, the High Court of Tanzania at Moshi convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death based on circumstantial evidence. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 28 February 2014. He filed a notice of motion for review on 15 April 2014, which was pending when he filed this Application before the African Court on 6 January 2015. The Court issued provisional measures on 18 March 2016 suspending execution of the death sentence pending determination of the matter.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court has jurisdiction to hear the Application.
  2. Whether the Application is admissible.
  3. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be assisted by an interpreter during police interrogation and committal proceedings.
  4. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to have access to a lawyer during police interrogation.
  5. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to consular assistance.
  6. Whether the investigation was improper and insufficient.
  7. Whether the Applicant's right to presumption of innocence was violated.
  8. Whether the Applicant's right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.
  9. Whether the Applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
  10. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to property.
  11. What reparations, if any, should be awarded to the Applicant.

Orders

  • Dismisses the objections on the lack of material jurisdiction of the Court.
  • Declares that the Court has jurisdiction.
  • Dismisses the objections on the admissibility of the Application.
  • Declares that the Application is admissible.
  • Finds that the Respondent State has not violated Articles 7, 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Charter with respect to the claims that the Applicant's rights to be assisted by an interpreter, to have access to a lawyer, to consular assistance, in relation to the allegation that the investigation was improper and insufficient, and to be presumed innocent were breached.
  • Finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 14 of the Charter in relation to the allegation that the Applicant's property was disposed of by agents of the Respondent State.
  • Finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 5 of the Charter for failing to provide the Applicant with food.
  • Finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter with respect to the allegation that the Applicant's trial was unduly delayed.
  • Finds that the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of the Charter.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer for the Court to quash his conviction and sentence, and order his release.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayers related to compensation for moral prejudice.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer to be paid material damages for monetary loss.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayers related to payment of legal fees incurred in the course of domestic proceedings.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayers related to the guarantee of non-repetition and publication of this Judgment.
  • Grants the Applicant the sum of US Dollars Five Hundred ($500) for being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
  • Grants the Applicant the sum of US Dollars Two Thousand ($2,000) for not being tried within a reasonable time and the anguish that ensued therefrom.
  • Orders the Respondent State to pay the amounts indicated within six (6) months, effective from this date, failing which it will also be required to pay interest on arrears calculated on the basis of the applicable Bank of Tanzania rate throughout the period of delayed payment until the amounts are fully paid.
  • Orders the Respondent State to submit within six (6) months from the date of notification of this Judgment a report on the status of implementation of the Orders herein.
  • Does not grant the Applicant's prayer related to payment of legal fees and other expenses incurred in the proceedings before this Court.
  • Decides that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Fair Trial Rights — Right to be Tried Within a Reasonable Time
Where an accused person is detained and does not impede the process, the State bears an obligation to ensure that the matter is handled with due diligence and expeditiously. A delay of one year and ten months between arrest and charging, caused by the State's procedural mistakes and not by the complexity of the case, violates the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
Prohibition of Inhuman and Degrading Treatment — Deprivation of Food in Detention
The prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is absolute. Where an applicant in custody adduces prima facie evidence that he was not given food on a regular basis during detention, the burden shifts to the State to prove the contrary. Failure by the State to provide food to a detainee constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment.
Fair Trial Rights — Right to Interpreter
The right to an interpreter is guaranteed under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter read with Article 14(3)(a) of the ICCPR. However, where an accused person demonstrates minimum understanding of the language of proceedings sufficient to make decisions on participation and does not object to the absence of an interpreter, the lack of provision of an interpreter does not affect the right to defence.
Jurisdiction of African Court — Material Jurisdiction
The African Court has material jurisdiction to examine allegations of human rights violations so long as the application alleges violations of provisions of international instruments to which the Respondent State is a party. The Court is not an appellate court with respect to decisions of national courts, but this does not preclude it from assessing whether domestic proceedings were conducted in accordance with international standards set out in the Charter and other ratified human rights instruments.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies
Where fair trial rights form a bundle of rights and guarantees, domestic authorities have ample opportunity to address related allegations even if not raised expressly during proceedings. In such circumstances, domestic remedies must be considered exhausted. Review proceedings in Tanzania are extraordinary remedies that applicants are not required to exhaust before filing applications before the African Court.
Reparations — Release from Custody
A measure such as release from custody can only be ordered in special or compelling circumstances, determined on a case-by-case basis with regard to proportionality between the measure sought and the extent of the violation. The procedural violation must have fundamentally affected domestic processes to the extent that the applicant would have been in a different position had the violation not occurred. Where violations do not affect the conviction and sentencing, and there is no evidence that conviction was based on arbitrary considerations, release is not warranted.

Legislation cited (16)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(b)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(d)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)(a)
  • Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Article 36(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • Criminal Procedure Act [CAP 20 RE 2002] Section 54(1)
  • Criminal Procedure Act [CAP 20 RE 2002] Section 54(2)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act

Cases cited (37)

  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)
  • Frank David Omary and Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 001/2012)
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 032/2015)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)
  • Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2012)
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2015)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 146 (ACHPR 2008)
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 003/2015)
  • Anudo Ochieng Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 012/2015)
  • Abdulgafur Batmaz v Turkey (Application No. 44023/09)
  • Huri-Laws v Nigeria (Communication 225/98)
  • John Modise v Botswana (Communication 97/93)
  • Moisejevs v Latvia (Application No. 64846/01)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 006/2013)
  • Minani Evarist v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 027/2015)
  • Diocles Willian v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 016/2016)
  • Loaysa-Tamayo v Peru (IACHR Series C No 33)
  • Del Rio Prada v Spain (Application No. 42750/09)
  • Annette Pagnoulle v Cameroon (2000) AHRLR 57 (ACHPR 1997)
  • Lloyd Reece v Jamaica (Communication No. 796/1998)
  • Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2011)
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2015)
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No. 013/2011)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Application No. 004/2013)
  • Advisory Opinion CC - 16/99 IACHR (1 October 1999) 'The right to information on consular assistance in the framework of the guarantees of the due process of law'
  • Amparo Directo en Revision 517/ 2011 Florence Marie Cassez Crepin, Pleno de la Suprema Corte de Justicia
  • Osagiede v United States
  • Republic v Lameck Bendawe Phiri (Sentence Rehearing Case No. 25 of 2017)
  • S.T.F., Ext. No. 954, Relator: Joaquim Barbosa, 17.05.2005; 98 DIARIO DA JUSTICIA 24.05.2005
  • Mansaraj and Others v. Sierra Leone
  • International Pen and Others (on behalf of Saro-Wiwa) v. Nigeria
  • Yasseen & Thomas v. Guyana
  • Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America)
  • Villagran-Morales et al v Guatemala

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Guehi v United Republic of Cote D'Ivoire Intervening (Application No. 001-2015) [2018] AfCHPR 19 (7 December 2018)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.