Samak v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 640 of 2016)
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 lack of diligent prosecution. The complainant was required to present arguments on admissibility within two months of the seizure decision but failed to do so. Despite multiple correspondences from the Commission, including one dated 22 September 2017, the complainant neither submitted admissibility arguments nor requested an extension of time. The Commission found the complainant had shown no interest in prosecuting the communication.
Outcome
Communication struck out without consideration of merits
Facts
On 12 October 2016, a complaint was filed on behalf of Mr Sharif Hassan Jalal Samak against Egypt, alleging torture, forced disappearance, harsh sentencing, and prison conditions violations. The complainant alleged that on 3 March 2014, police raided the victim's house, beat him, kidnapped him for ten days, and tortured him through beatings and electric shocks. The victim was allegedly forced to admit to nine fabricated charges, tried in military tribunals and local courts, and sentenced to 37 years in prison. The Commission was seized of the communication during its 59th Ordinary Session in October-November 2016. By letter dated 15 November 2016, the complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on admissibility within two months. The deadline expired on 15 January 2017. The complainant failed to submit admissibility arguments, did not respond to multiple correspondences, and did not request an extension of time.
Issues
- Whether the communication should be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution where the complainant failed to submit admissibility arguments within the stipulated time and did not respond to subsequent correspondence.
Orders
- Communication struck out for lack 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(a)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(b)
- 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 56(6)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 60
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 61
Cases cited (4)
- Mohammed Ramadan Mahmoud Fayad Allah v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 594 of 2015)
- Ahmed Mohammed Ali Subaie v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 612 of 2016)
- Journal Echos du Nord v Gabon (Communication 412 of 2012)
- Kofi Yamagnane v Republic of Togo (Communication 387 of 2010)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.