Criminal trial held over 10 years after alleged conduct without participation of the accused

Facts

The author of the communication is Dieudonné Télesphore Ambassa Zang, a national of Cameroon, who served as Minister of Public Works and in the National Assembly of Cameroon. In 2009, a prosecutor asked the National Assembly to waive his parliamentary immunity so that he could be prosecuted for embezzlement, which was granted. The author fled and obtained refugee status in France. In 2013, proceedings were initiated in a Special Criminal Court. The investigation was conducted without the author’s presence. In 2015, the author transmitted additional arguments on his own behalf, but without examining them the court sentenced him in abstentia to life imprisonment and payment of approximately 7.6 million euros in damages and an additional amount with another defendant. He appealed and had not received a decision six months after. He claims a violation by the State party of article 14 (1), (2), (3), and (5), read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant based on inter alia the court’s failure to consider evidence and argument presented by his lawyer, the delay during the course of the proceedings, and the lack of meaningful review of the conviction.

Admissibility

The Committee concluded that the author had not failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The author failed to substantiate his claim that his right to be presumed innocent was violated based solely on the media campaign against the author during the debate on the waiver of his immunity. The absence of a domestic remedy regarding the decision to waive parliamentary immunity did not constitute a violation of article 14 (5) because that article refers to rights and obligations in a suit at law, and that claim was therefore inadmissible.

Merits

The Committee concluded that the State party’s decision to initiate proceedings in a Special Criminal Court with numerous irregularities violated the author’s rights under article 14 (1). The Committee concluded that the State party’s failure to consider the evidence and argument provided by the defense and the court’s decision to base its conviction solely on the prosecution’s allegations violated the author’s rights under article 14 (1). Moreover, in the absence of any explanation from the State party, the proceedings violated the right under article 14 (3) (c) to be tried without unreasonable delay. The refusal of the author’s request to be represented by counsel and to have his written submissions taken into account constituted a violation of his right to be assisted by counsel and a violation of the principle of equality of arms under article 14 (3) (d) and (e) of the Covenant. Moreover, the State party violated the author’s right to have his case reviewed by a higher tribunal enshrined in article 14 (5).

Recommendations

The State party should, inter alia:

a) Grant the author adequate reparation for the violation of his right to a fair trial;

b) Review the conviction and sentence imposed on the author in accordance with the procedural guarantees contained in the Covenant.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 14 January 2024