|
|
59. The Complainant also argue[s] that the violations alleged are serious and involve a large number of people and should be declare admissible as the African Commission cannot hold the requirements of local remedies to apply literally in cases where it is impracticable or undesirable for the Complainant to seize the domestic courts in the case of each violation. In the case18, for example, this Commission observed that [t]he gravity of the human rights situation in Mauritania and the great number of victims involved render[ed] the channels of remedy unavailable in practical terms, and, according to the terms of the Charter, their process [was] ‘unduly prolonged’. In like manner, the Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa / Sudan, Paragraph 32 case 19 involved the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of many Sudanese citizens after the coup of 30th July 1989. The alleged acts of torture included forcing detainees into cells measuring 1.8 metres wide and 1 metre deep, deliberately flooding the cells, frequently banging on the doors to prevent detainees from lying down, forcing them to face mock executions, and prohibiting them from bathing or washing. Other acts of torture included burning detainees with cigarettes, binding them with ropes to cut off circulation, and beating them with sticks until their bodies were severely lacerated and then treating the resulting wounds with acid. After the coup, the Sudanese government promulgated a decree that suspended the jurisdiction of the regular courts in favour of special tribunals with respect to any action taken in applying the decree. It also outlawed the taking of any legal action against the decree. These measures, plus the “seriousness of the human rights situation in Sudan and the great numbers of people involved,” the Commission concluded, “render[ed] such remedies unavailable in fact.” 20
|