Cameroonian denied fair trial after being charged with misappropriation of public funds and unlawful withholding of property

Facts

The author is Achille Benoit Zogo Andela, a national of Cameroon. He was charged with misappropriation of public funds and unlawful withholding of property and placed in custody. He submitted an earlier communication to the Committee and the Committee requested that the State party release the author pending his trial and compensate him, but the State party failed to comply. The remaining proceedings contained numerous procedural defects including lack of access to the case file, inability to question or call witnesses, and the use of racial slurs during proceedings. The author filed complaints, appeals, and sought disqualification of judges to no avail. He was found guilty after a trial eight years after being remanded in custody and sentenced to 42 years’ imprisonment. He appealed. He also submitted two communications under international procedures in relation to rights that are not raised in the present communication. He claims that the State party violated his rights under article 2, article 14 (1) by proceeding despite the lack of impartiality, article 14 (3) (b), (c) and (e) due to lack of access to the file, unreasonable delay, and infringement on his right to call and question witnesses, and article 14 (5) by failing to provide him appellate review.

Admissibility

The fact that the author submitted communications under other international procedures did not affect admissibility because those communications raised different issues and the State party did not argue otherwise. The fact that the author’s appeal was still pending was not a barrier because the author had demonstrated that domestic remedies would not be effective, and the State party did not argue otherwise. Any claim under article 2 was not admissible on its own as article 2 cannot give rise to individual claims; therefore, the claims are inadmissible.

Merits

The Committee considered that the acts of hostility directed towards the accused and racist remarks made at the hearing which went unpunished by the Court and the groundless rejection of the author’s defense strategy cast doubt on the Court’s impartiality and violated the author’s article 14 rights. The author was prevented from properly preparing his defence because his attorneys were restricted from access to the case file in violation of article 14 (3) (b). The eightyear delay in prosecuting the case was unreasonable and violated the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (c). The author’s right to examine witnesses and obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses under article 14 (3) (e) was violated. Finally, as there was no process for the author to have his conviction reviewed by an appellate court on points of fact, his right to have his conviction reviewed under article 14 (5) was violated.

Recommendations

The State party should, inter alia:

a) Provide the author with adequate reparation for the harm caused;

b) Allow a higher tribunal to review the proceedings brought against the author in their entirety, providing for all the procedural guarantees set out in article 14 of the Covenant;

c) Ensure that the author is released immediately, pending a ruling on his case by a higher tribunal.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 14 January 2024