640/16 Mr Sharif Hassan Jalal Samak v. The Arab Republic of Egypt

“AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE pr bY) alas¥i UNIAO AFRICANA African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights Commission Africaine des Droits de I'Homme & des Peuples 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, Wes tern Region, P. O. Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia Tel: (220) 4410505 / 4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504 E-mail: au-banjul@africa-union.org; Web www.achpr.org Communication 640/16 Mr Sharif Hassan Jalal Samak The Arab Republic of Egypt Adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights during the 23 Extra-Ordinary Session, from 13 to 224 February 2018 Banjul, The Gambia o— £@ — Zep nw it BSN gQRETARIAy “ORS . A$ : Commissioner Soyata Maiga \obvincnneS8/ DY De, Mary Maboreke Chairperosf otnhe African Commission = ~~ Secretary to the African Commissioonn on Human and Peoples’ Rights Human and Peoples’ Rights Communication 640/16- Mr Sharif Hassan Jalal Samak v. The Arab Republic of Egypt Summary of the Complaint L The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Secretariat) received a Complaint on 12 October 2016 on behalf of Mr. Sharif Hassan Jalal Samak (the Victim), represented by the Organisation of European Alliance for Human Rights (AED) and AMAN Organization (the Complainants). The Complaint is submitted against the Arab ae lic of Egypt (the Respondent State), State Party to the African Charter. The Complainants allege that on 03 March 201 ed the Victim’s house, beat him severely, stole his furniturerand mo n idnappe d him for ten days. - ‘ During the time of the alleged ki » that police tortured the Victim through bé tings¢ Iso forced him to admit to nine fabricated charges ese charges, the ‘Victim was tried in military tribunals anc e Victim was sentenced to 37 years in prison. om Tanta prison to Liman Victim was tortured and subjected nts, the Victim suffered from angina and ated due to the prison conditions. it previous one. As the Victim’s health deteriorated, he to get treatment and could not even use a catheter for his heart condition. It is submitted that the Victim is also diabetic. The Complainants submit that crimes committed against the Victim include: violation of the Victim’s right to administration of justice; harsh sentence; torture and forced disappearance. Regarding the need to exhaust domestic remedies, the Complainants submit that the Victim exhausted all available domestic remedies as required under Article 56 of the African Charter. The Complainants allege that the prosecutor failed to investigate incidents of torture that the Victim was subjected to. The Complainants also submit that the Egyptian courts are not impartial; Oo igs > < (@) \ xi FZ 7 @ politicized and neutral Judges lose their jobs. They allege that the Judges issued an unreasonably harsh sentence on the Victim. 9. The Complainants submit that this Complaint has never been presented before any other international dispute settlement forum for settlement or adjudication and that it has been filed before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 56(6) of the Charter. Articles alleged to have been violated iolated Articles 1, 2,3, 4, 10. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent ' 5, 6, 7(a), (b), 8, 19, 60 and 61 of # an Tuman and Peoples’ Rights. < Procedure 15. By note weit ie dated 30 October 2017 and received at the Secretariat on 24 November 2017, the Respondent State indicated that the Complainant had not made their submissions on admissibility within the required time frame and requested that the Communication be struck out. Analysis of the Commission to strike out 16. Rule 105(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure establishes that when the Commission has decided to be seized of a Communication, it shall request the Complainant to present arguments on Admissibility within two (2) months. AS AND py Psp e wAT foes ik Via 17. Rule 113 provides that when a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, either party may apply to the Commission for extension of the period stipulated. The Commission may grant an extension of time for a period not longer than one (1) month. 18. In this case, the Complainant was requested to present evidence and arguments on the admissibility of the Communication within two (2) months from the date of notification of the seizure decision which had expired on 15 January 2017. However, the Complainant did not present a dence and arguments within the stipulated time. 19. To date, the Complainant has not, ) - submissions, (ii) responded to several correspon luding the last ae, ‘or an ex' ension of time has received the ds that the Complainant has nication? its. ce, including Communication 594/15: Mohammed Ramadan Mahm id Fayad Allah v. the Arab Republic of Egyp ommunicati ation 387/10: ofi Yamagnane v. The Republic of Togo, which f diligent prosecution. 22. In view of the above, the Commission decides to strike out the Communication for lack of diligent prosecution. Done at the 234 Extra-Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Banjul, The Gambia from 13 to 22 February 2018 ffean pis qf hRIAT y is [oN w”\\