ACmHPR:al-Asad v Djibouti(Extraordinary Rendition case) ruled inadmissible for incompatibility with the Charter in terms of Article 56(2) of the Charter(383/10. Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad v. the Republic of Djibouti;55th Ordinary Session, 28 April - 12 May 2014. Luanda, Angola)/14.10.14 achpr.org/communications/decision/383.10/ SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT -Summary of Facts (paras 1-14 pp. 1-3) Alleged violations of the African Charter (Para 15 at 3) Remedies sought (Para 16) The Commissions Analysis on Admissibility (paras 121-183) SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT Summary of Facts 1. This Communication was received at the Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (the Secretariat, and the Commission) on 10 December 2009. It is submitted by Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad (the Complainant) through the Global Justice Clinic (previously the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC)) of the Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice, Washington Square Legal Services Inc, New York University School of Law; and the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights (INTERIGHTS), (hereinafter jointly referred to as Representatives). 2. The Communication is submitted against the Republic of Djibouti, a Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (the Charter) since 20 December, 19911 and bound by its provisions since 20 March 1992 in terms of Article 65 of the Charter. 3. The Complainant states that he is a citizen of Yemen. From 1985 until 2003 he lived in the Republic of Tanzania and established a family there. He also had a successful business. To facilitate his residence and business undertakings including acquisition of land in Tanzania, he obtained a forged Tanzanian birth certificate and a passport. 4. He states that on 26 December, 2003 around 9:00 pm while at his home in Dar es Salaam, two men who spoke the Swahili language and appeared to him to be Tanzanians apprehended and blindfolded him; bound his hands; and abruptly took him to an apartment where he was questioned for about five hours concerning his entry and residence in Tanzania and how he obtained a Tanzanian passport. 5. In the early hours of 27 December, 2003 he was once again handcuffed, blindfolded, and taken to the airport where he was put on a small aircraft and flown to an undisclosed destination. The Tanzanian authorities did not inform the Complainant or his family and friends about the reason for his apprehension or indeed his whereabouts. The flight took a few several hours. Upon landing, the Complainant was quickly pushed into a motor vehicle and driven for about half an hour to a detention facility where he was kept in isolation for two weeks. 6. During the second week he was interrogated about three times concerning terrorist-related activities. The interrogations centred on his relationship with certain terrorist suspects, and Al-Haramain, an Islamic Foundation to which had previously rented office premises in his property in Tanzania and of which he had been appointed as a co-trustee. The interrogations were carried out in English with the help of an Arabic language interpreter. He denied involvement in any terrorist- related activities. 7. Concerning the conditions of his detention, the Complainant states that he was first briefly kept in a small old dirty and unfurnished room, and then transferred to a bigger and cleaner room which only had an old sponge mattress, a toilet, a tap, and a plastic basin. After a few days he was provided with a pillow and a sheet. He was never allowed a change of clothes for the entire two weeks. High up the walls of the room were two small windows which opened to the outside. Another window was on the iron door. During the night, there were a lot of mosquitoes which prevented him from sleeping. From this cell, he could hear motor vehicles passing by, the call to prayer, and children playing, all which gave him the impression that he was in a residential area. 8. The Complainant states that at the end of the two weeks, he was once more bound, blindfolded, and driven from the secret detention facility to an airport by local personnel. He further alleges that at the airport, he was pulled from the car, lifted off the ground and his blindfold was ripped off. He saw about five individuals clad in black with their faces concealed with balaclavas. The men tore off his clothing, shoved a finger into his rectum, photographed him naked, diapered him, and dressed him in a short sleeved shirt and a pair of trousers. Further, they plugged his ears with cotton, placed headphones and a hood over his head, tightly taped around his head, while his hands, waist, and feet were chained. He was then put on a waiting plane and flown out in turn to three detention facilities allegedly operated by the United States of America, two of which were in Afghanistan. 9. He states that in the subsequent secret detention facilities, he was still never allowed contact with the outside world including his own family and friends, organisations, and legal counsel. In addition he was subjected to continued isolate detention, constant loud music, dietary manipulation, artificial light twenty-four hours a day, and exposed to cold weather. 10. Eventually on 5 May 2005, he was transferred by the United States Government to Yemen where he was subsequently tried for forging travel documents, convicted upon his own plea of guilt, sentenced to time served, and released on 14 March 2006. He was and has never been charged with any terrorism-related offences. 11. Whereas at first the Complainant had no knowledge of the first destination from Tanzania and the location of his detention, he believes that it was in the territory of the Republic of Djibouti. His belief is premised on a set of circumstantial evidence collated from his own experiences and observations whilst in his first secret detention facility outside Tanzania; documents filed with the High Court of Tanzania on a habeas corpus application filed by his father; expert testimony; and various reports of international organisations and the mass media documenting the United States of Americas extraordinary rendition program undertaken as part of the counter-terrorism measures from the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 in the United States of America. 12. The Complainant further alleges that he believes the agents of the Government of Djibouti were involved from the moment of his arrival allegedly in Djibouti to the time he was handed over to the US agents who continued to detain and severally transfer him to the three subsequent secret detention facilities. 13. On 31 March 2009 his lawyers wrote the Attorney General of the Respondent State detailing the facts of his experiences during his secret detention by way of notice of violations of his rights as guaranteed under the African Charter. 14. The Complainant alleges that despite the notice, the Respondent State has not undertaken an effective investigation to discover additional information regarding his alleged detention and treatment in Djibouti. He further states that the Respondent State has neither identified and prosecuted those responsible, nor offered any other form of remedy to him. Alleged violations of the African Charter 15. The Complainant avers that the treatment he suffered at the alleged instance of the Respondent State amount to violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 12(4), 14, and 18 of the Charter. Remedies sought 16. Consequent upon the alleged violations the Complainant requests the Commission to:- (a)Recommend that the Republic of Djibouti should award him due compensation. (b)Recommend that the Republic of Djibouti should conduct a public inquiry into illegal apprehensions, renditions, and detentions in the context of counter- terrorism measures such as those exacted on him. (c)Require the Republic of Djibouti to report to the African Commission within six months on:- (i) the steps taken to investigate and prosecute any person responsible for the violation of his rights. (ii) the measures adopted to ensure appropriate oversight of foreign military and intelligence services on its territory as a guarantee for non-repetition of the type of violations he suffered The Commissions Analysis on Admissibility (paras 121-183)
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:06:07 +0000