The United Nations Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention has ruled that the Republic of Cameroon’s
imprisonment of political prisoner, Marafa Hamidou Yaya, constitutes
arbitrary detention in violation of international law.
At
its 75th session that held at the United Nations Headquarters in New
York from April 18-27, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention (WGAD) ruled that the detention of the Cameroonian political
prisoner, Marafa Hamidou Yaya, is unlawful. Following its practice, the
WGAD’s findings were disclosed first to the Government of Cameroon (GOC)
two weeks before communicating them to Marafa’s lawyer on Monday, June
27, 2016. The decision comes on the heels of the recent judgment handed
down by Cameroon’s highest court reducing Marafa’s prison sentence from
25 to 20 years for his role in the abortive purchase of a presidential
aircraft for President Biya’s travels.
Marafa Hamidou Yaya’s attorney, Professor Ndiva Kofele Kale, a legal academic and practitioner [member of the Cameroon Bar and licensed to practice before the Supreme Courts of the United States and the State of Illinois]
who focuses on Human Rights Protection and International Criminal Law,
cited the Government of Cameroon before the U.N. Working Group in June
2015 for violating his client’s right to a fair trial among other
internationally-
The
United Nations body has demanded that Mr. Marafa be released
immediately and be awarded compensation by the GOC for the harm caused
by being deprived of his liberty. The Working Group established that
Marafa’s detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights as well as Articles 9 and 14 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In its decision
the WGAD recommends that if the Cameroon Government can come up with
legitimate grounds for a new trial then Marafa should be given one where
all his due process rights will be scrupulously respected. It urged
President Biya’s government to take diligent steps to address Marafa’s
failing health which is worsening to the point of becoming irreversible.
It then referred the decision to Monica Pinto, the Special Rapporteur
of the Human Rights Council on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers,
for appropriate action.
Asked to comment on the decision, Professor Kale had this to say:
“The
decision of the Working Group vindicates my client and confirms what he
has always said that he is innocent of all the charges leveled against
him. But before professional talking heads spin this momentous decision
out of control, let me make note of the following three points. First,
unlike the Thierry Atangana and Lydienne Eyoum cases where the Cameroon
Government did not bother to file any pleadings, in this case the
Government not only filed but even requested a 60 day extension to
prepare its reply to my preliminary submission. Both the Government’s
and the complainant’s submissions were backed by supporting documents.
As a matter of fact these documents were so voluminous that they
contributed in prolonging the deliberations of the Working Group. The
point here is that this is not a default judgment but the reasoned
outcome of a contested dispute where both parties were allowed to lay
out their case. And the six distinguished jurists who comprise the
Working Group had before them the same set of documents as the
prosecutors who indicted Marafa; the judges of the Mfoundi High Court
who declared him guilty and the venerable justices of our Supreme Court
who confirmed the judgment of the lower court. Yet after reviewing the
same evidence, the panel of jurists on the Working Group came to the
opposite conclusion!
How
did our jurists get it wrong? Perhaps it is the search for an answer to
this question that the Working Group decided to refer their decision to
the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges for further
probing. In any event, it does not speak well of Cameroon’s judiciary as
this referral now puts in doubt its vaunted claims of independence and
impartiality. My second observation is that inasmuch as Cameroon is a
State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
she is legally bound by this decision and cannot refuse to execute it.
Finally, it remains my hope that President Biya will do the right thing
and instruct his Government to abide by the UN ruling against it and
take the steps that are necessary to bring Mr. Marafa’s arbitrary and
unjust detention to an end. At issue here is Cameroon’s willingness to
respect the Rule of Law not only in theory but in actual practice as
well. It must demonstrate evidence of that willingness by resisting the
temptation of aligning itself with those rogue states that flout the
decisions of international tribunals and by so doing become complicit in
weakening the global/international community’s efforts to protect some
of the most vulnerable victims of human rights violations!”
Under
the authority of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, the WGAD was established in 1991 to investigate and adjudicate
whether states are in compliance with their international human rights
obligations. It receives submissions from the individual complainant and
the respondents (the states), and decides whether the case amounts to
arbitrary (that is to say unlawful, or prohibited) detention. It will be
recalled that the WGAD had earlier ruled against the Cameroon
Government in Michel Thierry Atangana Abega v. Cameroon, WGAD, Opinion
No. 38/2013, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2013/
Articles
0 Commentaires