STRASBOURG, France – On November 6, 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) accepted the referral of Semenya v. Switzerland, a case challenging the decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s refusal to overturn regulations issued by World Athletics restricting eligibility for women’s athletic competitions.
Caster Semenya after winning the woman’s 800m at the 2018 Commonwealth Games in Australia | Photo Courtesy of AP News, Mark Schiefelbein
The case, filed by two-time Olympic gold medalist Caster Semenya, challenges the 2018 regulations instituted by World Athletics which limit hormone levels in female athletes for certain athletic events.
Born with differences of sexual development (DSD), Semenya has naturally elevated levels of testosterone. Under the World Athletics regulations, Semenya and all other female athletes with DSD would be required to submit to hormone-suppressing treatment for six months in order to compete in female track events between 400m and the mile.
This is not World Athletics’ first attempt to institute hormonal restrictions on women’s athletics. World Athletics (formerly the International Association of Athletics Federations) first introduced “hyperandrogenism” regulations in 2011, which instituted a ban on any female athlete who’s androgen levels fell within the male range.
These regulations were challenged by Dutee Chand in 2014 after World Athletics deemed her ineligible to compete. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) partially upheld Chand’s appeal and subsequently suspended the World Athletics regulations.
Following this decision, World Athletics withdrew the regulations. In 2018, it instituted the “Athlete with Differences of Sexual Development” regulations at issue which require any female athlete with DSD to reduce her blood testosterone to below five nmol/L for six months prior to competition and maintain these levels in order to compete.
In compliance with her arbitration clause, Semenya originally filed her case with CAS on June 18, 2018. The CAS found the World Athletics regulations to be discriminatory but held that such discrimination was a necessary, reasonable, and proportionate means of upholding the integrity of female athletics. Semenya’s subsequent appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) was dismissed.
Following dismissal by the SFT, Semenya filed the present case against Switzerland in the ECHR, alleging violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 for failing to provide sufficient institutional and procedural protections against discrimination and Article 13 for breaching her right to an effective remedy.
The ECHR ruled in Semenya’s favor on July 11, 2023, and the Swiss government subsequently requested the matter be referred to the Grand Chamber for reconsideration. The grant of referral was approved on November 6, 2023.
ARUSHA, Tanzania – Family members of Tunisian prisoners Rached Ghannouchi, Noureddine Bhiri, Ghazi Chaouachi, Said Ferjani, and the son of the deceased member of the Ennahda Party Ridha Bouzayene have asked the African Court on Human and People’s Rights to order the Tunisian government to provide the detainees “unimpeded access to their lawyers and to doctors of their choice” and to “provide particulars of the legal and factual grounds” of their detention and prosecution. They have also requested the suspension of the conviction of Rached Ghannouchi and the release of the prisoners.
Protestors in Tunis, Tunisia, carry images of political prisoners under President Saied’s government and Tunisian flags | Photo courtesy of The Guardian/Anadolu Agency.
The Court granted the request of the families to allow the detainees access to lawyers and doctors of their choice, as well as access to complete and adequate information regarding the basis for their detention. However, the Court refused to review the merits of the arrest or to order the release of the detainees at this stage of the proceedings.
Rached Ghannouchi, at 81 years old, is the leader of the Ennahda Party, the largest political party in the Republic of Tunisia. He was convicted on the charges of glorifying terrorism and conspiring against state security after he affirmed in the funeral eulogy of Farhat Al-Abbar, a former Ennahdha member and Al-Jazeera Correspondent, that the deceased “did not fear poverty, ruler or tyrant”. Amnesty International has declared that “the sentencing of Rashed Ghannouchi shows a growing crackdown on human rights and opposition and a deeply worrying pattern”. Ghannouchi is but one of over 40 opposing political targets who have been detained due to political charges against the Tunisian government.
The accusations came after Tunisian President Kais Saied’s self-coup in 2021, when he fired the prime minister, assumed all executive power, suspended the parliament, and dissolved the government. President Kais Seid’s strategy includes the arbitrary imposition of travel bans on political opposition, members of parliament, civilians, and journalists, and trials in violation of the right to freedom of expression under Decree-law 54. President Saied has also obtained the power to dissolve the Supreme Judicial Council formed in 2016 under Decree-law 22 and established a temporary one himself, with members of his choosing. Under Decree-Law 35, President Saied can also object to any judge’s appointment, promotion, transfer, or dismissal; he can fire judges directly and the government can assume disciplinary procedures against judges.
Ghannouchi and other detainees have undertaken hunger strikes in protest of what they consider a “judicial sham” and a violation of their right to a fair trial. As the number of human rights violations and political persecution increases, the detainees’ families have moved to continue their pleas to the International Criminal Court, in their hope that the Court will investigate the actions of the Tunisian government and order the release of their relatives.
BELÉM, Brazil – On June 16th, 2023, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted to the IDH Court the 12,398 case of Brazil, regarding the extrajudicial execution of teenagers Max Cley Mendes, Marciley Roseval Melo Mendes, and Luís Fábio Coutinho da Silva, during a slaughter that took place on December 13th, 1994 and became to be known as “The Massacre of Tapanã.”
Four of the accused policeman facing trial twenty four years after the executions | Photo Courtesy of Portal G1
The accusation reports that the Military Police officers received orders from higher authorities to locate and apprehend the murderers of Military Police Corporal Waldemar Paes Nunes, who had been a victim of robbery-murder moments earlier in an area nearby the “Tapanã Highway” in Belém, Pará. The information indicated that the perpetrators of the corporal’s murder had also stolen his firearm. The officers took police vehicles to carry out the order and brought with them the victim’s property caretaker as a witness, who had allegedly seen the corporal being murdered after his weapon was stolen.
According to court records, the police officers reportedly spotted Max Cley Mendes, Marciley Rosenaldo Melo Mendes, and Luiz Fabio Coutinho da Silva, who were recognized by the witness as the perpetrators of the robbery-murder that claimed the corporal’s life. After being approached, the suspects were handcuffed and executed. Eyewitnesses reported that four young individuals were apprehended: two of them were handcuffed and executed even before they entered the police vehicle and the other two had apparently tried to escape into the nearby wooded area, but were also executed after a pursuit.
The trial of the seventeen accused policemen happened only twenty four hours after, and resulted in the acquittal of all of them based on lack of evidence. The prosecutor did not appeal the decision.
Historically, in Brazil, the violent use of police force evolved from being a means of political control during the military dictatorship into a tool for social control, particularly in the context of managing criminality in the current days. The country still struggles to maintain civilian control of the military police and the military itself, notoriously being unable to properly investigate, prosecute and discipline the majority of crimes committed by those forces.
In that context, the Commission determined that the State violated the victims’ right to life and personal integrity and concluded that the operation did not adhere to the appropriate regulations for the use of force, and the agents failed to apply the criteria of necessity and proportionality. It was also stated that these events occurred within a context of state permissiveness towards police abuses and that the victims had endured torture prior to their execution.
The Brazilian state was notified of the filing on September 25th, and now has the opportunity to present a countercharge.
GUATEMALA – The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued a ruling on October 23, 2023, requiring Guatemalan authorities to take action to prevent the adoption of two proposed bills that would provide immunity to those alleged to have committed human rights atrocities.
Members of the Guatemalan Congress featured above have introduced bill 5920 “Law on Consolidation of Peace and Reconciliation” and Bill 6099 “Law on Strengthening Peace.” | Photo courtesy of Reuters/Luis Echeverria
Between, 2002 and 2018 the IACHR ruled on 14 cases alleging forced disappearances, executions, torture, war crimes, genocide and other issues that took place during Guatemala’s civil war. These rulings resulted in investigations, trials, and sentences for those responsible for these heinous actions.
Bill 5377, introduced in the Guatemalan Legislature in 2019, threatened to invalidate these rulings. If passed, the bill would have halted investigations and provided amnesty to those convicted in the 14 cases. Proponents of the bill and ones like it argue that it would allow the nation to heal divisions from the civil war. Others assert that it’s unfair to hold those accountable since these crimes were not specifically codified into law at the time.
In 2019, the IACHR issued ruling requiring that Guatemala “guarantee the right to access to justice for the victims” of the 14 cases and to take action to prevent the passage of Bill 5377. The Government of Guatemala complied with the ruling and Bill 5377 was tabled and not passed into law.
Recently, however, two new Bills, 5920 and 6099, were introduced to the Guatemalan Congress that would give amnesty to the perpetrators of human rights abuses during the Guatemalan Civil War. Notably, these bills not only immediately free those convicted of crimes but punish prosecutors, judges, and courts that attempt to review or dispute this law.
In response, representatives of victims of crimes perpetrated during conflict asked the court to “suspend and correspondingly definitively table” the bills, arguing that that the newly proposed laws violate IACHR’s previous ruling and have the same purpose as the previously invalidated 5377 bill in erasing liability for those convicted of serious human rights atrocities.
The Government of Guatemala maintains that they are in compliance with the court’s previous resolution, asserting that the ruling to table legislation only applied to Bill 5377. It further argues that Guatemala already has legislative and judicial “mechanisms to guarantee constitutionality and compatibility with conventional norms” with respect to these two bills.
The court sided with representatives of victims noting that both bills “seek to declare the extinction of criminal responsibility and absolute amnesty regarding all crimes committed during the internal armed confrontation.” Because of this, they are in violation of the court’s 2019 ruling which forbade Guatemala to put forth claims “excluding responsibility that prevent the investigation of the violations of serious human rights.”
Further, the court rejected the government’s argument that there are already national measures in place to ensure checks on the legal and constitutional validity of the laws, arguing that “there is a high risk that judicial control cannot be carried out internally.” This is because the bills would require the immediate release of those convicted before a review process may be able to take place.
Additionally, the provisions in the bill mandate criminal punishments for prosecutors, judges and courts officials seeking to review the law and hold the offending parties accountable. The court also notes the potential for harassment, intimidation, and threats to Guatemalan judicial officials in this situation based on past accounts of this in these cases. The courts, therefore, see these laws as harmful because of their potential to eliminate judicial independence, review and safety.
In the resolution, the court also required the Guatemalan government to present a report on how it’s complying with the ruling no later than December 4, 2023 and to continue sharing updated compliance reports every three months thereafter.
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) is facing an existential crisis as countries continue to defy its decisions. This regional institution is dedicated to upholding human rights across the continent, and countries’ defiance undermines the AfCHPR’s existence.The Organization of African Unity (OAU), the forerunner of the African Union (AU), adopted a protocol in Burkina Faso in 1998, which led to the establishment of the AfCHPR. In 2004, the agreement went into effect after being ratified by more than fifteen nations. The Court’s initial judges were chosen in 2006, and its initial decision was rendered in 2009.
Group photo of court justices | Photo Courtesy of Ghana News Agency
The AfCHPR and any other pertinent human rights treaties that have been ratified by the state in question are both circumstances in which the court will consider involving alleged violations of human rights. It was founded with a noble mission – to provide a legal platform for individuals and communities to seek redress for human rights violations. One of its remedies is to provide just recompense or make amends. Its judgments are legally binding, and signatory nations are obligated to comply with its rulings. Yet, the Court’s effectiveness is under threat as several African countries openly disregard its decisions.
The Court’s authority, and ability to protect fundamental human rights in Africa are at stake due to persistent non-compliance. According to a report released earlier this year on the Court’s activities in 2021, states’ “poor level of compliance” with its rulings was a significant issue. During the Court’s 16-year existence only a small number of judgments and orders were implemented out of more than the 200 that were issued. However, a majority have been disregarded by the respondent nations. According to the report, “as of July 2021, only 7% of judgments of the Court had been fully complied with, 18% partially complied and 75% non-compliance. Some States have stated clearly before the Executive Council that they will not comply with the Court’s decisions.”
By end of 2020, the governments of Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, and Tanzania had all revoked the right of individuals and non-governmental organizations to register cases directly with the Court. Rwanda revoked this privilege in 2016, bringing the total number of nations restricting access to this vital path to justice to four. All three governments revoked this right in response to what they perceived to be unfavorable decisions, a rise in intolerance towards human rights defenders, and a general deterioration of national human rights conditions. Tanzania withdrew the privilege, falsely claiming that the Court entertained matters that should have been handled by national courts. Benin disagreed with the Court’s decision to defer the seizure of an applicant’s property in a dispute with a bank, arguing that the decision undermined the country’s economic and political stability.
Most recently, the AfCHPR concluded its 70th Ordinary Session on September 29, 2023. It issued fifteen rulings on September 5, 2023. Responses to these 15 rulings will be foretelling. Despite the Court’s directive, little progress has been made to rectify this injustice, calling into question Tanzania’s commitment to upholding the Court’s decisions.
Cases such as these, regrettably, are not isolated instances. The reasons for non-compliance are multifaceted and include political considerations, limited resources, lack of awareness among government officials and the public regarding the Court’s authority, and concerns over external interference. The implications of non-compliance are far-reaching. They erode the trust in the AfCHPR and weaken its power to protect human rights. If countries can choose to disregard the Court’s rulings with impunity, the very purpose of the Court is undermined, and the dream of justice for human rights abuses in Africa remains elusive.
To ensure the survival and effectiveness of the AfCHPR, a multi-pronged approach is necessary. Primarily, it is essential for member states to honor their obligations and comply with the Court’s decisions. The African Union can play a pivotal role by engaging in diplomatic efforts to encourage compliance and emphasizing the importance of a united commitment to human rights.
Additionally, public awareness campaigns should be launched to educate citizens and government officials alike about the AfCHPR’s role and authority, underlining how it plays a critical role in promoting justice and accountability on the continent.
Moreover, international pressure and cooperation can be instrumental in holding non-compliant countries accountable. The international community can work collectively to stress the importance of human rights and the necessity for all nations to adhere to international norms and agreements.
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, a beacon of hope for justice and human rights in Africa, stands at a crossroads. The threat of non-compliance with its decisions jeopardizes the very existence of this crucial institution. It is a call to action for African nations, the African Union, and the global community to come together and safeguard the AfCHPR’s authority and its mission of promoting and protecting human rights across the continent. Failure to address this issue may result in the erosion of fundamental human rights in Africa and a setback for justice and accountability.
