Wakilii

Pagnoulle v Cameroon (Communication 39 of 1990)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [1997] ACHPR 2 · 1997 Communication Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of the African Charter by Cameroon
Decision
Communication upheld; Cameroon found in violation of the African Charter; recommendation made for reinstatement of victim

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 found Cameroon violated Articles 6, 7.1(b), 7.1(d), and 15 of the African Charter. Mr Mazou was arbitrarily detained beyond his sentence without legal basis. His continued administrative detention violated the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court failed to hear his reinstatement case within two years without explanation. The government's refusal to reinstate him as magistrate after the 1992 Amnesty Law, while reinstating others sentenced under similar conditions, violated his right to work.

Outcome

Communication upheld; Cameroon found in violation of the African Charter; recommendation made for reinstatement of victim

Facts

Abdoulaye Mazou, a Cameroonian magistrate, was imprisoned in 1984 by a military tribunal without trial, witnesses, or right to defence. He was sentenced to five years for hiding his brother, who was later sentenced to death for attempted coup d'état. After serving his sentence in April 1989, he remained imprisoned until May 1990 when freed by Amnesty International intervention. He was then placed under house arrest until the April 1991 amnesty law. Despite the 1992 Amnesty Law requiring reinstatement of public employees granted amnesty, the government refused to reinstate him as magistrate. He petitioned the President, the Ministry of Justice, and the Supreme Court without result. The Supreme Court had not decided his case after two years.

Issues

  1. Whether Cameroon violated Article 6 of the African Charter by detaining Mr Mazou beyond the expiry of his sentence without legal basis.
  2. Whether Cameroon violated Article 7.1(b) by detaining Mr Mazou on mere suspicion without presumption of innocence.
  3. Whether Cameroon violated Article 7.1(d) by failing to hear Mr Mazou's case before the Supreme Court within a reasonable time.
  4. Whether Cameroon violated Article 15 by refusing to reinstate Mr Mazou in his position as magistrate after the Amnesty Law despite reinstating others sentenced under similar conditions.

Orders

  • Declares a violation of Articles 6, 7.1(b), 7.1(d) and 15 of the African Charter.
  • Recommends that the Government of Cameroon draw all the necessary legal conclusions to reinstate the victim in his rights.

Rules and key headnotes

Arbitrary Detention — Detention Beyond Sentence — Violation of Article 6
Detention of an individual beyond the expiry of a lawfully imposed sentence, without any judgment extending the sentence, constitutes arbitrary detention in violation of Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Presumption of Innocence — Administrative Detention on Suspicion
Administrative detention based on mere suspicion that an individual may cause problems or disturb public order violates the right to be presumed innocent under Article 7.1(b) of the African Charter.
Right to Fair Hearing — Trial Within Reasonable Time
Where a case concerns an individual's ability to work in his profession, failure to hear the case or provide a projected trial date for over two years without explanation constitutes a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under Article 7.1(d) of the African Charter.
Right to Work — Discriminatory Application of Amnesty Law
A state violates Article 15 of the African Charter (right to work under equitable and satisfactory conditions) when it refuses to reinstate a public employee after an amnesty law while reinstating others sentenced under similar conditions, thereby preventing the individual from working in his professional capacity.
Temporal Jurisdiction — Continuing Violations
The African Commission cannot pronounce on the equity of court proceedings that took place before the African Charter entered into force in a state, but where irregularities in the original sentence have consequences that constitute a continuing violation of Charter provisions after entry into force, the Commission has jurisdiction to pronounce on those continuing violations.

Legislation cited (16)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7.1(b)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7.1(d)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 65
  • Amnesty Law of 23 April 1992 Article 2
  • Amnesty Law of 23 April 1992 Article 3
  • Ordinance No. 304
  • Ordinance No. 72/5
  • Ordinance No. 72/20
  • Law No. 74/4
  • Ordinance No. 72/13
  • Ordinance No. 72/6
  • Law No. 76/28
  • Decree No. 80/276
  • Decree No. 82/467

Cases cited (1)

  • communication 59/91

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pagnoulle v Cameroon (Communication 39 of 1990) [1997] ACHPR 2 (24 April 1997)
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.