A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844 (E) 071123 071123

Human Rights Council

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary

Detention at its ninety-fourth session,

29 August-2 September 2022

Opinion No. 63/2022, concerning Maurice Kamto, Albert Dzongang,

Alain Fogue Tedom, Michèle Ndoki, Paul Eric Kingue, Gaston Philippe

Abe Abe, Célestin Djamen Ndjamo, Sylvanus Muthaga, Jean Djieukou

Mouaffi, Samiratou Matchuendem, Laure Kamegne Noutchang, Jean

Bonheur Tchouefa Nouka, Mamadou Yacoubou, Christian Fouelefack

Tsamo and Olivier Bibou Nissack (Cameroon)

1.

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of

the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and

clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251

and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the

Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a

three-year period in its resolution 42/22.

2.

In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 26 April 2022 the Working Group

transmitted to the Government of Cameroon a communication concerning Maurice Kamto,

Albert Dzongang, Alain Fogue Tedom, Michèle Ndoki, Paul Eric Kingue, Gaston Philippe

Abe Abe, Célestin Djamen Ndjamo, Sylvanus Muthaga, Jean Djieukou Mouaffi, Samiratou

Matchuendem, Laure Kamegne Noutchang, Jean Bonheur Tchouefa Nouka, Mamadou

Yacoubou, Christian Fouelefack Tsamo and Olivier Bibou Nissack. The Government has not

replied to the communication. The State is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights.

3.

The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:

(a)

When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the

deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her

sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);

(b)

When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or

freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,

26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);

(c)

When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to

the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the

relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to

give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);

1 A/HRC/36/38.

United Nations

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

General Assembly

Distr.: General

4 November 2022

English

Original: French

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

2

GE.22-24844

(d)

When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged

administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy

(category IV);

(e)

When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on

the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,

religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,

or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings

(category V).

Submissions

Communication from the source

4.

Maurice Kamto, born on 15 April 1954, is a citizen of Cameroon who usually resides

in Yaoundé. He is a university professor, a lawyer and a former Minister of Justice. He is

also the founder and President of the party Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun.

5.

Albert Dzongang, born in 1948, is a citizen of Cameroon who usually resides in the

Ndogbong district of Douala. He is a technical expert in fires and the leader of the Dynamique

pour la renaissance nationale party.

6.

Alain Fogue Tedom, born in 1969, is a Cameroonian university professor who usually

resides in the Efoulan district of Yaoundé.

7.

Michèle Ndoki, born on 31 March 1973, is a Cameroonian lawyer who usually resides

in the Akwa-North district of Douala. She is the Vice-President of the Women’s Organization

of the Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun.

8.

Paul Eric Kingue, born on 20 August 1966, is a citizen of Cameroon who usually

resides in Yaoundé. He is the President of the party Mouvement patriotique pour un

Cameroun nouveau.

9.

Gaston Philippe Abe Abe, born on 12 September 1975, is a Cameroonian artist and

political activist who usually resides in Yaoundé.

10.

Célestin Djamen Ndjamo, born on 16 January 1965, is a citizen of Cameroon who

usually resides in Douala. He is a municipal councillor and the National Secretary for Human

Rights of the Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun.

11.

Sylvanus Muthaga, born on 12 June 1985, is a Cameroonian teacher who usually

resides in Douala.

12.

Jean Djieukou Mouaffi, born on 24 September 1986, is a Cameroonian teacher and

researcher who usually resides in the Haut-Nkam department, in the Ouest Region.

13.

Samiratou Matchuendem, born on 20 January 1970, is a Cameroonian trader living in

the Ndogbassi district of Douala.

14.

Laure Kamegne Noutchang, born on 19 September 1977, is a Cameroonian municipal

councillor who usually resides in the Bonabéri district of Douala.

15.

Jean Bonheur Tchouefa Nouka, born on 24 April 1985, is a Cameroonian high school

teacher who usually resides in the Pait-Grond district of Dschang, in the Ouest Region.

16.

Mamadou Yacoubou, known as Mota, is a citizen of Cameroon who usually resides

in Marara. He was 40 years old at the time of his arrest. He is an agricultural engineer and

the Vice-President and acting President of the Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun.

17.

Christian Fouelefack Tsamo, born on 20 July 1981, is a Cameroonian lecturer who

usually resides in Dschang.

18.

Olivier Bibou Nissack is a Cameroonian politician and columnist who was 40 years

old at the time of his arrest. He is Mr. Kamto’s adviser and spokesperson.

19.

The source reports that, in September 2012, Mr. Kamto established the Mouvement

pour la renaissance du Cameroun, one of the main parties opposing the current regime, which

he has chaired since then. A coalition formed around his candidacy for the presidential

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844

3

election of October 2018. According to the source, Mr. Kamto received backing from the

leading figures of the opposition, including Mr. Dzongang, Mr. Kingue and Mr. Abe Abe.

Mr. Kamto finished in second place in the presidential election and asked for the election to

be declared invalid on the grounds of fraud, to no avail.

20.

On 26 January 2019, the Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun organized

peaceful marches in various cities in Cameroon to denounce the alleged electoral fraud and

corruption, as well as the alleged refusal to launch a political process to end the civil war in

the country’s English-speaking regions. Demonstrators were instructed to avoid engaging in

acts of violence or vandalism and to comply with the law enforcement authorities. These

demonstrations, which had been announced in advance, went ahead despite the fact that they

are routinely banned by the administrative authorities. The demonstrations were violently

repressed and resulted in the arrest and detention of numerous people, including key leaders

of the Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun.

21.

In 2020, the Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun called for further peaceful

demonstrations to demand that the Government end the conflict in the North-West and

South-West Regions of Cameroon and undertake a consensual reform of the electoral system

to be implemented in the regional elections to be held on 6 December 2020. These marches

took place on 22 September 2020 and were declared to the administrative authorities.

However, they were violently repressed and 593 people around the country were arrested and

placed in administrative custody for two weeks or deprived of their liberty without

justification. The source reports that many of the detained persons were denied access to a

lawyer and that these arrests and alleged abuses were the subject of international

condemnation.

a.

Arrest and detention

i.

Arrests and detentions in 2019

Maurice Kamto, Albert Dzongang, Sylvanus Muthaga, Samiratou Matchuendem and Laure

Kamegne Noutchang

22.

According to the source, Mr. Kamto, Mr. Dzongang, Mr. Muthaga, Ms. Matchuendem

and Ms. Kamegne Noutchang were arrested on 28 January 2019, along with 75 other people,

by a group of heavily armed law enforcement officers during a friendly, private meeting at

Mr. Dzongang’s home in Douala.

23.

The source reports that, when the persons concerned were arrested, at around 9 p.m.,

the police, who had been surrounding the house since the end of the day, presented them only

with a search warrant signed by the State prosecutor attached to Douala-Ndokoti Court of

First Instance. In addition, the arrested persons were subjected to so much verbal abuse that

Mr. Dzongang filed a complaint against the Chief Superintendent.

24.

According to the source, they were taken to the criminal investigation police in Douala

and not to the judge who had signed the search warrant, before being taken to Yaoundé by

bus after midnight. After travelling throughout the night, while handcuffed, they were taken

to the Special Operations Task Force. They were not shown any documents or informed of

any charges justifying their detention and none of them was given the opportunity to contact

his or her families or lawyers.

25.

The source reports that Mr. Kamto was not given access to a lawyer until 30 January

2019, while Mr. Dzongang was not given access to a lawyer until three days after his arrest.

Mr. Muthaga and Ms. Kamegne Noutchang did not have access to a lawyer until after they

had been charged, while Ms. Matchuendem did not have access to a lawyer until several days

after she had been charged. The meetings between the five above-mentioned individuals and

their lawyers were subjected to numerous restrictions. In addition, Mr. Dzongang’s family

were not informed of his place of detention for seven days after his arrest.

26.

The source reports that, while Mr. Kamto and Mr. Dzongang were being held at the

Special Operations Task Force, they had to sleep on a mattress on the floor, without a blanket,

in a cell flooded with rainwater and infested with mice and insects. According to the source,

they had to shower in a corner of the courtyard in the open air, in full view of everyone and

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

4

GE.22-24844

the cameras, and the toilets were some distance away from the cell. The source notes that

Mr. Kamto was not permitted to eat a meal, take his medication, wash himself or change his

clothes until 48 hours after his arrest. The sleeping conditions and lack of ventilation in the

cell have caused him lasting health problems. The source also notes that the poor conditions

in which Mr. Muthaga was held at the Special Operations Task Force and at Yaoundé prison

made him ill. Mr. Dzongang was kept locked in his cell night and day for seven days.

27.

The source reports that Mr. Kamto and Mr. Dzongang were then transferred to

Yaoundé prison, where they were held in cells measuring 15 and 12 m2, respectively, along

with other prisoners convicted of offences under ordinary criminal law and terrorism offences.

During their detention, Mr. Kamto and Mr. Dzongang did not receive any medical treatment

or follow-up, even though Mr. Dzongang is diabetic.

Célestin Djamen Ndjamo

28.

According to the source, Mr. Djamen Ndjamo was seriously injured by projectiles

fired by police officers during the solemn march that took place on 26 January 2019 in Douala.

29.

On 28 January 2019, at around 8.30 p.m., Mr. Djamen Ndjamo was arrested by the

Criminal Investigation Department while he was bedridden at Douala General Hospital. The

officers ripped out the drip through which he was being fed and did not show him a warrant

or explain the reasons for his arrest.

30.

Mr. Djamen Ndjamo was held at the Secretariat of State for Defence and then

transferred to Yaoundé in conditions that were degrading as he was kept in handcuffs and

unable to relieve himself. The source reports that Mr. Djamen Ndjamo was not informed that

he was being held in police custody until 7 February 2019 and was not granted access to a

lawyer before he was charged on 12 February 2019. In addition, numerous restrictions were

placed on his meetings with his lawyer and family.

31.

The source reports that, during his detention in Yaoundé prison, Mr. Djamen Ndjamo

did not receive regular care for his injuries, putting him at risk of contracting gangrene.

Michèle Ndoki

32.

The source states that, although Ms. Ndoki did not participate in the marches held on

26 January 2019, she was pursued by a police officer when she went to the hospital to see

Mr. Djamen Ndjamo. The police officer threatened her and then injured her by shooting her

in the leg several times, at close range.

33.

On 26 February 2019, at around 10 a.m., Ms. Ndoki was stopped in Idenao when the

border police showed her a message to the effect that, unbeknown to her, she was banned

from leaving the country. Despite Ms. Ndoki’s willingness to comply by returning to her

home, she was arrested without being shown a warrant and without being informed of the

reasons for her arrest. She was taken by force to Yaoundé police headquarters in a locked

vehicle escorted by eight hooded and heavily armed persons without knowing where she was

going. She was also kept in handcuffs for several hours without being able to relieve herself

or notify her family. At around 7 p.m., she was taken into custody at Yaoundé police

headquarters and then transferred to the Special Operations Task Force, where her custody

order was signed. The source notes that an expedited investigation procedure, conducted by

criminal investigation officers, was initiated against her.

34.

On 28 February 2019, the government commissioner of Yaoundé Military Tribunal

extended her custody by 48 hours, that is, until 2 March 2019. On 4 March 2019, Ms. Ndoki

was informed that her period of custody had been extended. The commissioner claimed that

this was a regularization procedure that applied retroactively on 2 March and would expire

at 7 p.m. on 4 March. No further extensions were subsequently ordered.

35.

The source reports that Ms. Ndoki was prevented from seeing her lawyers for the first

two days of her custody and on several occasions during her detention. She was held in

Yaoundé prison for six months before being released.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844

5

Alain Fogue Tedom

36.

The source reports that Mr. Fogue Tedom was arrested in Yaoundé on 28 January

2019 after being asked to report to central police station No. 3 in Yaoundé. After going there,

Mr. Fogue Tedom was arrested without being shown a warrant and without being informed

of the reasons for his arrest. He was transferred to the Special Operations Task Force and his

family and lawyer did not know where he was being held for four days.

37.

According to the source, Mr. Fogue Tedom was subjected to physical and mental

torture while in detention at the Special Operations Task Force and was deprived of food for

two days. He was also interviewed by an intelligence officer who lacked investigative police

powers. The criminal investigation police tried to force him to sign the administrative custody

order issued against him by the Prefect of Mfoundi. During his detention, he was forced to

sleep under a light, to shower in a courtyard where police officers were moving around, and

to stay in his cell for long periods with no toilet in which to relieve himself. If he had not

been brought before a competent authority, Mr. Fogue Tedom would have begun a 15-day

hunger strike.

38.

According to the source, during his detention in Yaoundé prison, Mr. Fogue Tedom

was held in the same cell as persons convicted of offences under ordinary criminal law and

terrorism offences. The frequent fights between the inmates put Mr. Fogue Tedom in danger.

Paul Eric Kingue and Gaston Philippe Abe Abe

39.

The source reports that, on 26 January 2019, Mr. Kingue and Mr. Abe Abe were

arrested in Yaoundé without being shown a warrant and without being informed of the

reasons for their arrest, even though they had not been involved in the protests. The source

notes that Mr. Kingue had previously been arrested in 2008 and held for 20 days without

being brought before a judge, and that the Working Group had found his detention to be

arbitrary under category I.2

40.

On 26 January 2019, Mr. Kingue was arrested at around 10.10 a.m. while waiting for

friends in his vehicle outside a supermarket. Two vehicles containing 18 police officers

surrounded his car and arrested him. The source states that, during Mr. Kingue’s arrest, he

was subjected to verbal and psychological abuse and his glasses were broken.

41.

Mr. Abe Abe was arrested in front of the French Institute in Yaoundé while he was

waiting for a cab with his young child. A vehicle containing 10 police officers took him away,

forcing him to leave his child alone on the side of the road.

42.

According to the source, these two arrests were carried out by the Mobile Response

Unit and the Special Rapid Response Team. The source reports that Mr. Kingue and Mr. Abe

Abe were held in detention and were not permitted to communicate with their lawyer until

they appeared before the investigating judge of the Yaoundé Military Tribunal on

13 February 2019.

43.

During his detention in Yaoundé prison, Mr. Abe Abe was held alongside dangerous

individuals convicted of offences under ordinary criminal law and terrorism offences.

Jean Bonheur Tchouefa Nouka and Christian Fouelefack Tsamo

44.

According to the source, Mr. Tchouefa Nouka and Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo were

arrested in Dschang on 26 January 2019 without being shown a warrant and without being

informed of the reasons for their arrest. They were detained at Dschang police station and the

Dschang Brigade Terre gendarmerie, respectively, before being transferred to Dschang

prison and then to the Central Command of the mobile response units.

45.

According to the source, Mr. Tchouefa Nouka was not permitted to contact his lawyer

until four days after his arrest and when he was charged. The source reports that, during

Mr. Tchouefa Nouka’s detention, meetings with his lawyer were difficult to arrange.

2 Opinion No. 38/2014.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

6

GE.22-24844

Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo was denied access to his lawyer before he was charged and his

meetings with his lawyer were subjected to severe restrictions.

46.

On 5 February 2019, Mr. Tchouefa Nouka and Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo were informed

by the Prefect of Mfoundi that they were to be placed in administrative custody.

47.

With regard to Mr. Tchouefa Nouka’s and Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo’s conditions of

detention, the source reports that, following Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo’s arrest, a chief inspector

at Dschang police station ordered that he be beaten up. Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo was hit with

helmets, shoes, batons and belts before being hit again and insulted by another chief inspector.

The latter placed him in a dark cell and poured five buckets of dirty water over him.

Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo spent the night in a waterlogged cell before being transferred to the

main prison in Dschang, where he was stripped naked on the orders of the prison governor.

Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo was placed in solitary confinement before being transferred to

Yaoundé in inhumane conditions. During his detention in Yaoundé prison, Mr. Fouelefack

Tsamo was held in the same cell as 100 other inmates and was not permitted to leave the cell

for nearly 72 hours.

48.

As for Mr. Tchouefa Nouka, the source reports that he was beaten during his arrest

and dragged along the ground before being beaten again at the police station. After being left

for dead for several minutes, he was dragged along the ground again, stripped naked and

thrown in a cell. According to the source, Mr. Tchouefa Nouka was subjected to humiliating

treatment, including being insulted and stripped naked, until his transfer to Yaoundé, which

also took place in inhumane conditions.

Jean Djieukou Mouaffi

49.

Mr. Djieukou Mouaffi was arrested by police and gendarmes in Bafang on 26 January

2019 without being shown a warrant or being informed of the reasons for his arrest.

50.

The source reports that Mr. Djieukou Mouaffi was detained at Bafoussam prison from

26 to 28 February 2019 and was then transferred to the Central Command of the mobile

response units, where he remained in custody from 29 January to 12 February 2019. On

8 February 2019, he was notified of an administrative custody order issued against him by

the Prefect of Mfoundi.

51.

Mr. Djieukou Mouaffi was not permitted to see a lawyer until after he was charged,

on 12 February 2019. His subsequent meetings with his lawyer were subjected to numerous

restrictions. The source states that, following Mr. Djieukou Mouaffi’s arrest, he was

subjected to torture and intimidation, denied food and threatened with being shot.

Mamadou Yacoubou (known as Mota)

52.

The source reports that Mr. Yacoubou was arrested on 1 June 2019 without being

shown a warrant and without being informed of the reasons for his arrest. An administrative

custody order was issued against him on the same day without his being notified.

53.

In July 2019, Mr. Yacoubou was held incommunicado without being allowed to

contact his lawyers. He was subjected to psychological and physical torture resulting in a

fractured forearm and headaches.

54.

Mr. Yacoubou was detained at Yaoundé prison and, from 22 July 2019, at the

Secretariat of State for Defence. On 9 September 2020, he was sentenced to two years’

imprisonment following a riot in the prison.

ii.

Proceedings and ongoing detention of individuals arrested in 2019

55.

The source states that, on 30 January 2019, the Prefect of Mfoundi, acting in

accordance with a written request made by the director of the criminal investigation police,

issued an order for the administrative custody of the above-mentioned individuals who had

been arrested in 2019 (hereinafter “the 14 individuals arrested in 2019”). They were not

brought before a judge until 13 February 2019, on which date they appeared before the

investigating judge of the Yaoundé Military Tribunal. With the exception of Mr. Yacoubou,

they were all charged with the following offences, some of which are punishable by death:

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844

7

insurrection, hostility towards the nation, rebellion, damage to public or protected property,

insulting the President of the Republic, unlawful assembly, political meeting or

demonstration, destruction, and aiding and abetting such acts. Ms. Ndoki was also charged

with attempted illegal emigration. Mr. Yacoubou was charged with engaging in rebellion and

revolution.

56.

On the same day, the 14 individuals arrested in 2019 were ordered to be held in pretrial

detention for six months. The investigating judge also issued an order for these individuals

to be investigated.

57.

The source reports that, even before they had been questioned, the 14 individuals

arrested in 2019 had filed applications for the military tribunal to be found to lack jurisdiction

to try civilians. No formal decision was taken in response to this request. In addition, their

habeas corpus petitions were dismissed and the rulings on their appeals were issued after a

closed hearing, despite the fact that the law provides for a public hearing. In addition, the

source notes that the requests for release made on behalf of the 14 individuals arrested in

2019 were refused or were not heard.

58.

According to the source, the 14 individuals arrested in 2019, alongside other accused

persons, were heard by the investigating judge of Yaoundé Military Tribunal in groups of

24 persons summoned to appear at the same time and on the same day. By an order of 11 July

2019, without any real investigation having taken place, the 14 individuals arrested in 2019

were referred to Yaoundé Military Tribunal for trial as part of a group of 104 civilians.

59.

On 12 August 2019, when the pretrial detention ordered by the investigating judge for

a period of six months expired, no other detention order was issued, with the result that there

was no legal basis for the detention of the 14 individuals arrested in 2019. The new habeas

corpus petitions filed in response to this situation were also dismissed.

60.

The source reports that, on 5 October 2019, three days before the start of the trial and

after more than eight months of detention, Yaoundé Military Tribunal halted the proceedings

against the 14 individuals arrested in 2019. The source also reports that, despite the fact that

the detention order of 13 February 2019 had provided for their detention for only 6 months,

Mr. Kamto, Mr. Dzongang, Mr. Fogue Tedom, Mr. Djamen Ndjamo, Ms. Matchuendem and

Ms. Kamegne Noutchang were released after spending 8 months and 7 days in detention;

Mr. Kingue, Mr. Abe Abe, Mr. Tchouefa Nouka, Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo, and Mr. Djieukou

Mouaffi were released after spending 8 months and 9 days in detention; and Mr. Muthaga

was released after spending 21 months and 19 days in detention. They have not been awarded

any compensation.

61.

Mr. Yacoubou was released on 5 February 2021, after spending 18 months in

detention.

iii.

Arrests and detentions in 2020

Maurice Kamto

62.

The source reports that Mr. Kamto was deprived of his liberty for further periods,

starting on 20 September 2020. In response to the call made by the Mouvement pour la

renaissance du Cameroun for further solemn marches to be held on 22 September 2020, a

large security detail of about 200 armed police, military personnel and assault vehicles was

deployed around Mr. Kamto’s home in Yaoundé on the night of 20 September 2020.

63.

Mr. Kamto was placed under de facto house arrest and was surrounded by security

forces with orders to arrest him if he tried to leave. He was prohibited from receiving any

guests at his home and an infrared surveillance camera was installed in front of it. The source

also states that neither Mr. Kamto nor anyone else could leave the house, not even to buy

food or receive medical care.

64.

According to the source, Mr. Kamto’s lawyers were prevented from entering on

several occasions and it was not until 28 September 2020 that one of them was able to meet

with him. His lawyer was summoned by the chiefs of the Cameroonian gendarmerie and

police, who informed him that Mr. Kamto was forbidden from leaving his home but did not

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

8

GE.22-24844

show him any official document to justify this measure. Summary proceedings were brought

to stop this flagrant administrative irregularity but no action was taken.

65.

The source notes that, on 8 December 2020, the siege of Mr. Kamto’s home was

suddenly lifted without any explanation.

Alain Fogue Tedom and Olivier Bibou Nissack

66.

On 22 September 2020, Mr. Fogue Tedom was arrested again while attempting to

intervene in a dispute between the security forces and a supporter of Mr. Kamto outside the

latter’s home. He was transferred to the Secretariat of State for Defence and held in custody

for 44 days, until 4 November 2020.

67.

The source reports that, on the same day, a police commissioner forbade Mr. Bibou

Nissack from leaving his home, which was surrounded by security forces. At around 2 p.m.,

the same commissioner, on the pretext of taking Mr. Bibou Nissack to a meeting organized

by the Delegate-General for National Security, took him to the regional premises of the police

unit responsible for investigations. For more than eight hours, 10 or so investigators

questioned Mr. Bibou Nissack about his political activities without his lawyer being present.

His lawyer was not informed of his arrest. Mr. Bibou Nissack was then taken to the

Secretariat of State for Defence, where he was mistreated.

68.

On 4 November 2020, Mr. Fogue Tedom and Mr. Bibou Nissack were transferred to

Kondengui central prison to be held in pretrial detention for six months. A judicial

investigation against them for attempting to stage a revolution, rebellion, aggravated

assembly and failing to carry an identity card was initiated before the Yaoundé Military

Tribunal.

69.

Mr. Fogue Tedom’s and Mr. Bibou Nissack’s habeas corpus petitions and requests for

release were dismissed in a closed hearing without their being brought before the judge or

informed of the detention orders.

70.

Mr. Fogue Tedom and Mr. Bibou Nissack were sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment

by the Military Tribunal and are still in detention. Their appeals were postponed to

24 December 2020 as the rulings that were being challenged had not been drafted.

b.

Legal analysis

71.

The source argues that the detention of the above-mentioned 15 individuals

(hereinafter “the 15 individuals”) is arbitrary under categories I, II and III.

i.

Category I

Legal framework

72.

The source notes that arrests and detention are arbitrary when there is no legal basis

for them and no order has been issued by the competent judicial authorities and the reasons

for the arrest are not stated.

73.

According to the source, no warrants were shown to the 15 individuals when they

were arrested, and they were not properly informed of the custody measures.

74.

In this regard, the source recalls that, on 28 January 2019, when Mr. Kamto,

Mr. Dzongang, Mr. Muthaga, Ms. Matchuendem and Ms. Kamegne Noutchang were arrested,

they were shown a search warrant dated the same day and signed by the State prosecutor

attached to the Douala-Ndokoti Court of First Instance. The source argues that a search

warrant, as defined in article 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot constitute an

arrest warrant. Therefore, it considers that these five people were arrested on the basis of a

document that could not be used to justify an arrest.

75.

The source also claims that the searches carried out at Mr. Dzongang’s home were

unlawful since they took place at 8.30 p.m., that is, at a time when, under articles 99 and 100

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such searches are prohibited on pain of being declared

null and void and there were no circumstances that would allow for an exception to be made.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844

9

76.

The source also notes the lack of legal basis for the arrest of Mr. Fogue Tedom and

Mr. Bibou Nissack in September 2020 as the latter was improperly taken to the premises of

the police unit responsible for investigations and was then placed in custody.

77.

Lastly, the source claims that, between 20 September and 8 December 2020,

Mr. Kamto was held under de facto house arrest without any order or warrant being shown

to him or his lawyer, who nevertheless met with the chiefs of the police and the gendarmerie.

Mr. Kamto filed an initial urgent application for summary proceedings, which was dismissed

without a reasoned decision on 5 October 2020. A handwritten note mentioned a lack of

extreme urgency and a new urgent application for a summary judgment was filed.

Appearance before a judge

78.

The source recalls that, under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, “anyone arrested or

detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge”. The source notes

that the Working Group classifies as arbitrary the detention of any person who has not been

brought before a judge.3

79.

Under article 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arrest is the apprehension of a

person with a view to bringing him or her without delay before the authority provided for by

law or by the warrant for the arrest. If a person is discovered in flagrante delicto, article 114 (1)

of the same Code provides that the arrested suspect must be brought immediately before the

State prosecutor, who may place him or her in pretrial detention.

80.

The source states that the 14 individuals arrested in 2019 were not brought before a

judge until 13 February 2019, which was at least 15 days after they had been taken into

custody. Mr. Kamto, Mr. Dzongang, Mr. Muthaga, Ms. Matchuendem and Ms. Kamegne

Noutchang were arrested in Douala on the basis of a search warrant but were not brought

before the prosecutor who had signed the warrant or any judge. They were not informed that

they were being held in police custody either. The same applies to the individuals arrested in

September 2020.

Police custody and detention

81.

The source notes that Act No. 90-54 of 19 December 1990 on the maintenance of law

and order reserves the special measure of administrative custody for organized and other

serious crime. According to the source, the administrative custody order issued by the Prefect

of Mfoundi against the persons arrested in 2019 is unlawful ratione materiae since the acts

in question cannot be classified as serious or organized crime.

82.

The Prefect of Mfoundi also lacks territorial jurisdiction since administrative custody

must be decided by the competent administrative authority in the area under his or her

command. In the present case, the order was issued against persons arrested outside the

territorial jurisdiction of the Prefect of Mfoundi. The source also notes that the annulment

appeals filed against this decision in April 2019 have gone unanswered.

83.

The source also claims that the administrative custody measures were irregular since

the persons concerned were not duly informed of them as they were not given a copy of the

order setting out the charges against them. Furthermore, the detainees’ lawyers and family

members were not informed of their place of detention, contrary to the requirements of

Cameroonian law.

84.

Under article 118 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police custody must take

place in a police station. In the present case, the persons concerned were detained at the

Special Operations Task Force, the Central Command of the mobile response units or the

Secretariat of State for Defence, special police and gendarmerie units that do not have

investigative police powers. In addition, the persons taken into custody in January and

February 2019 were transferred to, and detained in, a jurisdiction that does not include the

place where they were arrested or the place where the offences were alleged to have been

3 See opinion No. 38/2013.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

10

GE.22-24844

committed. Therefore, they were detained without judicial jurisdiction and without

justification.

ii.

Category II

85.

The source recalls that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant

protect the right to freedom of opinion and expression (art. 19 of both instruments), the right

to peaceful assembly (arts. 20 and 21, respectively), the right to freedom of association

(arts. 20 and 22, respectively), the right to take part in the conduct of the public affairs of

one’s country, directly or through freely chosen representatives, and the right to vote and to

be elected (arts. 21 and 25, respectively).

86.

In the present case, the arrest and detention of the 15 individuals resulted directly from

the exercise of their freedom of opinion and expression, their freedom of peaceful assembly

and association, and their right to take part in the conduct of their country’s public affairs.

87.

According to the source, the solemn marches following which the 15 individuals were

arrested were unquestionably peaceful as no calls for violence were made. The instructions

to remain calm were respected, the arrested persons were not accused of committing any

violent act and they did not offer any resistance. The source therefore believes that the

purpose of the arrests made during the solemn marches was to silence any opposition.

88.

The persons arrested at Mr. Dzongang’s home on 28 January 2019 were not found to

have committed any act of violence and were arrested solely because they were present at the

scene. The source adds that no authorization was required to hold private meetings at

Mr. Dzongang’s home.

89.

According to the source, the orders to conduct investigations and impose pretrial

detention, as well as the charges brought, confirm the political nature of the detention of the

15 individuals. In addition, the source notes that the three individuals identified as being

“ringleaders”, who include Mr. Dzongang and Mr. Kamto, were the key figures in the

opposition to the current Government and were targeted for this reason.

90.

The source also argues that the circumstances of the arrests of Mr. Fogue Tedom and

Mr. Bibou Nissack, the nature of the questions put to Mr. Bibou Nissack while he was in

police custody, and the charges brought against them, which are identical to those brought

against the individuals arrested in 2019, make it apparent that they were arrested and detained

for political reasons in September 2020.

iii.

Category III

91.

The source notes the Working Group’s findings that military judges and military

prosecutors do not meet the basic criteria of independence and impartiality and are therefore

not competent to review the lawfulness or arbitrariness of the detention of civilians. In this

regard, the trial of a civilian by a military or quasi-military court would be incompatible with

the right to a fair trial and therefore in violation of the Covenant and customary international

law.

92.

According to the source, the 15 individuals are civilians but were prosecuted before a

military court that, under article 8 of the Code of Military Justice, had no jurisdiction to try

the charges against them. The source concludes that the charging and detention of civilians

by a military court is unlawful and that the detentions of the 15 individuals are therefore

arbitrary.

93.

The source also notes that, under article 9 (2) of the Covenant, the reasons for an arrest

must be stated immediately and detained persons must be promptly informed of the legal and

factual basis for their detention. It adds that simply stating that a warrant was issued for a

person’s arrest and that he or she was taken to prison after being charged is not sufficient to

establish that he or she was promptly informed of the charges.

94.

The source states that the 15 individuals were not informed of the charges against

them until they were brought before a judge, which was not until at least 15 days after their

arrest.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844

11

95.

The source also recalls that persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal

assistance by counsel of their own choosing, at any time during their detention, including

immediately after they are arrested.

96.

In the present case, none of the 15 individuals had access to a lawyer immediately

after his or her arrest. When they were permitted to meet with their lawyers, the meetings

were subjected to numerous restrictions. Mr. Dzongang’s lawyer was prevented from

meeting with him throughout his time in police custody (8–12 February 2019). The notes

taken by Mr. Bibou Nissack and Mr. Fogue Tedom’s lawyer during a meeting with them

were snatched from his hands and confiscated by a military officer of the Secretariat of State

for Defence. These obstacles have been reported by the lawyers, the Cameroonian Bar

Association and the press.

97.

The source further notes that article 10 of the Covenant guarantees the right of all

persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent

dignity of the human person. In addition, principle 19 of the Body of Principles for the

Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment protects the right

of detained or imprisoned persons to receive visits from their families, subject to reasonable

restrictions prescribed by law. The source states that the United Nations Standard Minimum

Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) guarantee health-related

rights while article 9 of the Covenant prohibits incommunicado detention. Lastly, the source

notes that article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure protects the right of persons deprived

of their liberty to communicate with their families, to consult a doctor and to receive medical

care.

98.

In the present case, the source states that the 15 individuals were deprived of these

rights, including the right to contact their families, who were not told where they were being

detained. Mr. Dzongang was held in solitary confinement while in police custody and was

locked in a cell for two days.

99.

The persons detained at the Secretariat of State for Defence were denied visits, which

are prohibited there, and medical care, despite the fact that some of them, including

Mr. Djamen Ndjamo, were injured. Care could not be obtained by the persons suffering from

illnesses requiring specific treatment (including diabetes, high blood pressure and heart

disease) who were detained at the Central Command of the mobile response units or the

Special Operations Task Force.

100.

The source notes that article 7 of the Covenant and principle 6 of the Body of

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment

prohibit the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. The

Nelson Mandela Rules also set out hygiene standards to prevent persons deprived of their

liberty from being exposed to any kind of degrading situation. Consequently, all places of

detention must be decent and provide the facilities required for inmates to sleep, eat, wash

and relieve themselves.

101.

In the present case, the source states that the 15 individuals were subjected to verbal

or psychological violence and placed in situations that constituted inhuman and degrading

treatment, including the journey to Yaoundé, during which they were handcuffed and

prevented from relieving themselves.

102.

Mr. Kamto was forced to sleep in rat-infested premises that were often flooded. The

persons detained at the Special Operations Task Force were forced to shower in a yard where

there was no privacy and an armed officer was watching them. The toilets were some distance

away and were locked and supervised by an officer who was often absent. On 18 June 2019,

Mr. Kamto wrote to the Minister of Justice to describe the treatment to which he was

subjected in detention. In July 2019, these detention conditions led to a riot that was violently

suppressed, following which members of the Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun

were taken to the Secretariat of State for Defence and tortured. Mr. Muthaga’s lawyers were

unable to locate him for several days after the riot.

103.

Mr. Bibou Nissack and Mr. Fogue Tedom were also subjected to torture and

unacceptable conditions of detention while in the custody of the Secretariat of State for

Defence.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

12

GE.22-24844

Response from the Government

104.

On 26 April 2022, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning the

15 individuals to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information about them

by 27 June 2022 and to guarantee their physical and mental integrity.

105.

The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government

and that the Government did not request an extension of the time limit for its reply, as

provided for in the Working Group’s methods of work.

Discussion

106.

In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided

to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.

107.

In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of the above-named 15 individuals

is arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence

to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of

international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be

understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.4 In the present

case, the Government has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made

by the source.

Category I

108.

Under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of his liberty except on

such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. International

law on deprivation of liberty includes the right to be presented with an arrest warrant, which

is procedurally inherent in the right to liberty and security of person and the prohibition of

arbitrary detention under articles 3 and 9, respectively, of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, article 9 of the Covenant, and principles 2, 4 and 10 of the Body of Principles

for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.5 Article 9 (2)

of the Covenant provides that anyone who is arrested must be informed, at the time of arrest,

of the reasons for the arrest. An arrest is arbitrary when it is made without the arrested person

being informed of the reasons for the arrest.6

109.

The source states that no warrants were presented to the 14 individuals arrested in

2019 at the time of their arrest and that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest.

Furthermore, the source claims that on 28 January 2019, when Mr. Kamto, Mr. Dzongang,

Mr. Muthaga, Ms. Matchuendem and Ms. Kamegne Noutchang were arrested, they were

shown a search warrant dated the same day and signed by the State prosecutor. The

Government has not addressed the source’s allegations.

110.

The Working Group notes the source’s undisputed allegations that none of the

14 individuals arrested in 2019 was presented with a warrant upon arrest or informed of the

reasons for his or her arrest. It is particularly concerned to note that Mr. Djamen Ndjamo,

who was seriously injured, was arrested on 28 January 2019 while bedridden at the Douala

General Hospital, and that Mr. Fogue Tedom was arrested on the same day in Yaoundé after

being asked to report to central police station No. 3 in Yaoundé.

111.

With regard to the persons arrested at Mr. Dzongang’s home on 28 January 2019, the

Working Group notes that a search warrant signed by the State prosecutor does not satisfy

the requirement to present a valid arrest warrant. In the absence of information from the

Government to the contrary, the Working Group considers that these persons were arrested

unlawfully, on the basis of a document that could not be used to justify their arrest.

112.

Therefore, the Working Group concludes that the arrest of the 14 individuals in 2019

lacked a legal basis and was contrary to article 9 (1) and (2) of the Covenant.

4 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.

5 Opinions No. 88/2017, para. 27; No. 3/2018, para. 43; No. 30/2018, para. 39; and No. 27/2021,

para. 34.

6 Opinions No. 16/2020, para. 60; and No. 46/2020, para. 40.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844

13

113.

The source states, and the Government does not dispute, that the searches of

Mr. Dzongang’s home were conducted at 8.30 p.m., that is, at a time when they are prohibited

on pain of being declared null and void under articles 99 and 100 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Although the source has not demonstrated that any item seized during the searches

was used as evidence against the arrested persons, the Working Group believes that the

undisputed illegality of the searches reinforces its conclusion that there was no legal basis for

the arrest of the persons present at Mr. Dzongang’s home.

114.

The Working Group considers that it is not in a position to decide on the question of

the territorial jurisdiction of the Prefect of Mfoundi, which is a matter for national law.7

However, it is concerned to note that the annulment appeals filed against this ruling in April

2019 have not been answered.

115.

The source also alleges that Mr. Kamto was held under de facto house arrest from

20 September to 8 December 2020, without any order or warrant being presented to him.

According to the source, the Government forbade him from receiving guests and a

surveillance camera was installed in front of his house. Furthermore, neither Mr. Kamto nor

anyone else was allowed to leave the house, not even to get supplies or medical care. On

28 September 2020, Mr. Kamto’s lawyer met with him and was summoned by the chiefs of

the Cameroonian gendarmerie and police, who informed him that Mr. Kamto was forbidden

from leaving his home but did not show him any official document to justify this measure.

In the absence of information from the Government to the contrary, the Working Group

considers that Mr. Kamto was held under de facto house arrest and that this detention had no

legal basis.

116.

According to the source, Mr. Fogue Tedom was arrested for a second time on

22 September 2020 while trying to intervene in a dispute between the security forces and a

supporter of Mr. Kamto and was subsequently transferred to the Secretariat of State for

Defence and held in custody for 44 days. The Working Group does not have sufficient

information to establish that there was no legal basis for this arrest.

117.

With regard to Mr. Bibou Nissack, the source states that he was taken to the regional

premises of the police unit responsible for investigations and was then taken into custody on

the pretext of being taken to a meeting organized by the Delegate General for National

Security. However, the Working Group does not have sufficient information regarding the

lack of an arrest warrant to establish that there was no legal basis for Mr. Bibou Nissack’s

arrest.

118.

Under article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge

must be brought “promptly” before a judge. Forty-eight hours is ordinarily sufficient to

satisfy the requirement to bring a detainee “promptly” before a judge. Any longer delay must

remain absolutely exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.8 Article 9 (3) of the

Covenant also provides that pretrial detention should be the exception rather than the rule,

and should be ordered for the shortest possible time.9 It must be based on an individualized

determination that it is reasonable and necessary for such purposes as to prevent flight,

interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime.10 The courts must examine whether

alternatives to pretrial detention, such as release on bail, would render detention

unnecessary.11 Without such a review, the case for imposing pretrial detention is not properly

established and it therefore has no legal basis.12

119.

The Working Group notes the undisputed allegations that the 15 individuals were not

brought before a judge for at least 15 days following their arrest. Moreover, although the

detention order of 13 February 2019 provided for their detention for only 6 months,

Mr. Kamto, Mr. Dzongang, Mr. Fogue Tedom, Mr. Djamen Ndjamo, Ms. Matchuendem and

7 Opinion No. 46/2020, para. 62.

8 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33.

9 A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58; and opinions No. 5/2019, para. 26; No. 62/2019, paras. 27–29; and

No. 64/2020, para. 58.

10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.

11 Ibid.

12 Opinions No. 68/2019, para. 96; and No. 36/2020, para. 51.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

14

GE.22-24844

Ms. Kamegne Noutchang spent 8 months and 7 days in detention; Mr. Kingue, Mr. Abe Abe,

Mr. Tchouefa Nouka, Mr. Fouelefack Tsamo, and Mr. Djieukou Mouaffi spent 8 months and

9 days in detention; and Mr. Muthaga spent 21 months and 19 days in detention. They have

not been awarded any compensation. Mr. Yacoubou spent 18 months in detention. With

regard to Mr. Bibou Nissack’s detention in September 2020, the source notes that his habeas

corpus petition and his request for release were dismissed in a closed hearing without his

being brought before the judge or informed of the detention order. The Working Group notes

that the Government has not explained how the detention of the 15 individuals was based on

an individualized determination that it was reasonable and necessary for such purposes as to

prevent flight, interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime.

120.

The Working Group therefore concludes that the detention of the 15 individuals

lacked a legal basis and was arbitrary under category I. It notes, however, that it is not in a

position to decide whether the relevant provisions of article 118 (1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure were violated in the present case since this is a matter for the national courts.13

Category II

121.

The source argues that the arrest and detention of the 15 individuals are directly related

to their exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and

association, and their right to take part in the conduct of their country’s public affairs. The

source states that no act of violence, or call for violence, was found to have been carried out

or made by the 15 individuals in connection with the solemn marches and that the meeting at

Mr. Dzongang’s home was a friendly and private affair. The source also argues that it is

apparent from the circumstances and the charges brought against Mr. Fogue Tedom and

Mr. Bibou Nissack, which are identical to those brought against the individuals arrested in

2019, that they were arrested and detained for political reasons in September 2020. The

Government has not responded to these allegations.

122.

Articles 19 (2), 21 and 22 of the Covenant guarantee the rights to freedom of

expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of association, respectively. Article 25 of the

Covenant guarantees the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs. These rights are

also protected by articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

respectively.

123.

Noting the absence of information to the contrary from the Government, the Working

Group believes that the arrests and detentions of the 15 individuals resulted from their

exercise of their freedom of expression and their right to peaceful assembly and association.

There is nothing to suggest – and the Government has not shown – that the restrictions

provided for by articles 19 (3) and 25 of the Covenant were applicable in the present case.

The Working Group is not convinced that prosecuting the 15 individuals was necessary to

protect a legitimate interest within the meaning of these provisions, nor that their detention

was proportionate to their activities.

124.

Consequently, the Working Group concludes that the arrest and detention of the

15 individuals are contrary to articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant and are therefore arbitrary under

category II. The Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion

and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur

on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

Category III

125.

Having concluded that the detention of the 15 individuals was arbitrary under

category II, the Working Group affirms that none of them should be tried and that Mr. Fogue

Tedom and Mr. Bibou Nissack should not have been tried.

126.

According to the source, the charging and detention by a military court of the

14 individuals arrested in 2019 was unlawful. The source reports that, on 13 February 2019,

these individuals appeared before the investigating judge of Yaoundé Military Tribunal. They

13 Opinion No. 46/2020, para. 62.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844

15

were charged with crimes against the State, some of which are punishable by the death

penalty. They filed applications for the Military Tribunal to be found to lack jurisdiction to

try civilians, but no formal decision was taken in connection with this request. In addition,

following Mr. Fogue Tedom’s and Mr. Bibou Nissack’s arrest in 2020, they were sentenced

to 7 years’ imprisonment by the Military Tribunal. The Government has not responded to

these allegations.

127.

The right to a hearing by an impartial and independent tribunal is protected by

article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant.14

The Working Group has established in its jurisprudence that military courts have jurisdiction

to try only military personnel for military offences and that they must not try civilians,

irrespective of the charges brought.15 A tribunal composed of military personnel, such as the

one that presided over the present case, cannot be considered “a competent, independent and

impartial tribunal” under international human rights law.16

128.

In the absence of information from the Government to the contrary, and noting that

the 15 individuals were all civilians, the Working Group considers that their charging,

detention and/or conviction by a military tribunal was in violation of article 10 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the Covenant.

129.

Under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant, any individual charged with a criminal

offence must be informed promptly of the nature and cause of the charge against him or her.

The Working Group notes the source’s undisputed allegation that the 15 individuals were not

informed of the charges against them until they were brought before a judge, which did not

occur until at least 15 days after their arrest. Therefore, the Working Group considers that

their right under article 14 (3) (a) of the Covenant has been violated.

130.

Under article 14 (3) of the Covenant, all persons deprived of their liberty have the

right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choosing at any time during their detention, including

immediately after arrest, to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their

defence, and to communicate with counsel of their own choosing. Access to legal counsel

must be provided without delay. 17 The Working Group notes the source’s undisputed

allegations that the 15 individuals did not have access to a lawyer immediately after their

arrest and that their lawyers were subsequently subjected to numerous restrictions. The

Government has chosen not to challenge those allegations. Therefore, the Working Group

concludes that the rights of the 15 individuals under article 14 of the Covenant have been

violated.

131.

For these reasons, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the

15 individuals’ right to a fair trial were of such gravity as to give their deprivation of liberty

an arbitrary character under category III.

Concluding remarks

132.

The Working Group is concerned about the source’s undisputed allegations that the

15 individuals were deprived of the right to communicate with their families and to access

medical care and that they were placed in detention with convicted prisoners. It recalls that,

under article 10 of the Covenant, the Government is required to treat all persons deprived of

their liberty with humanity and to ensure that prisoners awaiting trial, who have the right to

be presumed innocent, are separated from convicted prisoners.18 In addition, rules 24–35 and

58 of the Nelson Mandela Rules require the authorities to provide persons deprived of their

14 See also the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the

Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court (A/HRC/30/37,

annex), principle 6; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007).

15 Opinion No. 46/2019, para. 66.

16 A/HRC/27/48, paras. 66–71 and 85–86. See also, for example, opinions No. 6/2012, para. 45;

No. 15/2016, para. 25; No. 44/2016, para. 32; No. 51/2016, para. 26; No. 51/2017, para. 43;

No. 56/2017, para. 58; No. 3/2018, para. 57; No. 73/2018, para. 61; and No. 4/2019, para. 58.

17 A/HRC/30/37, annex, principle 9 and guideline 8.

18 See also the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or

Imprisonment, principle 8.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

16

GE.22-24844

liberty with any necessary health care and to allow them to have regular contact with their

relatives.19

133.

The Working Group is also seriously concerned about the source’s allegations that the

15 individuals were subjected to verbal and psychological abuse, placed in situations

constituting inhuman and degrading treatment, and held in unacceptable conditions of

detention. Article 7 of the Covenant and principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the

Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment prohibit the cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. The Nelson Mandela

Rules also set out hygiene standards to prevent persons deprived of their liberty from being

exposed to any kind of degrading situation.

Disposition

134.

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:

The deprivation of liberty of Maurice Kamto, Albert Dzongang, Alain Fogue Tedom,

Michèle Ndoki, Paul Eric Kingue, Gaston Philippe Abe Abe, Célestin Djamen

Ndjamo, Sylvanus Muthaga, Jean Djieukou Mouaffi, Samiratou Matchuendem, Laure

Kamegne Noutchang, Jean Bonheur Tchouefa Nouka, Mamadou Yacoubou, Christian

Fouelefack Tsamo, and Olivier Bibou Nissack, being in contravention of articles 3, 9,

10, 19, 20, and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 9, 14,

19, 21, 22 and 25 of the Covenant, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, and III.

135.

The Working Group requests the Government of Cameroon to take the steps necessary

to remedy the situation of Mr. Fogue Tedom and Mr. Bibou Nissack without delay and bring

it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant.

136.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the

case, the appropriate remedy would be to release the individuals who remain in detention

immediately and accord each of the 15 individuals an enforceable right to compensation and

other reparations, in accordance with international law. In the current context of the global

coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the threat that it poses in places of detention,

the Working Group calls upon the Government to take urgent action to ensure the immediate

release of the individuals who remain in detention.

137.

The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent

investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the

15 individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of

their rights.

138.

In accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers

the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to

freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of

peaceful assembly and of association, for appropriate action.

139.

The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion

through all available means and as widely as possible.

Follow-up procedure

140.

In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests

the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up

to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:

(a)

Whether Mr. Fogue Tedom and Mr. Bibou Nissack have been released and, if

so, on what date;

(b)

Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the

15 individuals;

19 Opinion No. 46/2019, para. 68. See also the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons

under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, principle 9.

A/HRC/WGAD/2022/63

GE.22-24844

17

(c)

Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the

15 individuals’ rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;

(d)

Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to

harmonize the laws and practices of Cameroon with its international obligations in line with

the present opinion;

(e)

Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.

141.

The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may

have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and

whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working

Group.

142.

The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the

above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present

opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up

to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action

would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in

implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.

143.

The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States

to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views

and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily

deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.20

[Adopted on 2 September 2022]

20 See Human Rights Council resolution 42/22, paras. 3 and 7.