Opinion; Subjects: CAMEROON, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-07363 (E) 020625 030625
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 102nd session, 1–10 April 2025
Opinion No. 16/2025, concerning Urbain Awono Olanguena
(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 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work,1 on 20 December 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Cameroon a communication concerning Urbain Awono
Olanguena. 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);
(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,
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
General Assembly
Distr.: General
21 May 2025
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
2
GE.25-07363
disability, or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of
human beings (category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Urbain Awono Olanguena, a national of Cameroon born in 1955, was the Minister
of Health of Cameroon from 2001 to 2007.
5.
The source reports that, after being ranked several times among the world’s most
corrupt countries, Cameroon launched Opération Epervier (Operation Sparrowhawk) in the
2000s to fight corruption. According to the source, while the operation was initially
welcomed, it quickly turned into a political purge.
6.
As Minister of Health, Mr. Olanguena introduced reforms and revitalized the health
sector, which at the time of his appointment was considered to be in a dire state.
7.
From 2005, Mr. Olanguena was identified as being part of a group of prominent
persons with ambitions to accede to the presidency in 2011, when President Paul Biya’s
second term expired.
8.
In 2006, the Secretary-General of the President’s Office initiated an audit of health
programmes, specifically those concerning AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, through the
Supreme State Audit Office. According to the source, this audit conducted incomplete and
inaccurate investigations and produced a manifestly ill-founded audit report.
9.
Mr. Olanguena was stripped of his ministerial duties in September 2007.
(i)
Arrest and custody
10.
On 31 March 2008, some time after the submission of the health programme audit
report, Mr. Olanguena was arrested at his home in Yaoundé by members of the Criminal
Investigation Department and placed in police custody, where he was questioned about
allegations of misappropriation of public funds. The source notes that in the same week, the
constitutional provision limiting to two the number of terms a president could serve was
abolished.
11.
He was held in police custody for 10 days during the preliminary investigation, from
31 March to 9 April 2008, even though the legal maximum duration of police custody
under article 119 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is 6 days. During this period,
Mr. Olanguena was filmed lying on the floor of his cell and the footage was broadcast on
the news on the national television station.
(ii)
Charges, investigation and trial
12.
At the end of his period in police custody, Mr. Olanguena was charged on 9 April
2008 with 10 counts of alleged misappropriation of various sums of money totalling
8.55 billion CFA francs, in connection with the management of programmes to combat
AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
13.
In response to Mr. Olanguena’s arrest, on 7 May 2008 the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the leading funder of programmes to combat these
diseases, issued an official statement signed by its Executive Director. According to the
source, this statement declared that the financial and programme reports of the Global
Fund’s grant agreements in Cameroon indicated that these grants had been managed
appropriately, and that the Global Fund had found nothing to suggest that its funds had
been misused.
14.
According to the source, neither the political nor the judicial authorities in
Cameroon took into account the statement by the Executive Director of the Global Fund
clearing Mr. Olanguena of wrongdoing.
15.
The source adds that, as the Global Fund’s local representative in Cameroon, the
auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers continuously monitored the implementation of
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
GE.25-07363
3
projects financed by the Fund and reported quarterly to the Fund’s management in Geneva.
It also points out that external audits did not reveal any wrongdoing during
Mr. Olanguena’s term of office.
16.
At the end of his investigation in 2009, the examining judge of the Mfoundi High
Court issued two orders concerning the 10 charges brought against Mr. Olanguena:
(a)
A separation order, issued on 21 August 2009, in respect of the charge of
misappropriation of funds for medicines allegedly not delivered by the National
Procurement Centre for Essential Drugs and Medical Devices; according to the source, this
case was referred to the Special Criminal Court on 3 October 2012 and is still pending.
(b)
An order issued on 1 October 2009, dismissing four charges – which were
thus dropped – and referring the five remaining charges to the Mfoundi High Court.
17.
According to the source, three of the five charges referred were new charges, the
examining judge having changed the original charges of unjustified expenditure and
undelivered materials to offences of misappropriation through violation of public
procurement regulations. According to the source, the examining judge modified these
three charges without requesting additional charges to be brought by the public prosecutor,
as required by article 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and without informing
Mr. Olanguena so that he could present his defence.
18.
These three charges were later dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which considered
them to be new charges for which Mr. Olanguena had never been indicted, as required
under Cameroonian criminal law.2 The Court of Appeal also ordered the proceedings to be
returned to the Mfoundi High Court, so that the latter could exercise its jurisdiction over the
two remaining charges.
19.
The source considers that this ruling by Court of Appeal has acquired the force of
res judicata following the rejection by the Supreme Court of Cameroon of an appeal in
cassation by the prosecutor’s office.3 Despite this case law, the source reports that the
public prosecutor’s office subsequently decided to bring another prosecution against
Mr. Olanguena on the charges dismissed by another court, as detailed below.
20.
The Mfoundi High Court, which had been hearing Mr. Olanguena’s case since
February 2010, had meanwhile set 15 October 2012 as the date for delivering its judgment
on the two charges.
21.
On 15 October 2012, the public prosecutor was reportedly absent from the
courtroom, meaning that the court was unable to deliver its verdict, in application of
article 128 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the public prosecutor to
be present at all hearings under penalty of the decision being declared null and void. The
judges therefore postponed announcing the verdict until the following day, but once again
the public prosecutor did not show up to the courtroom. As a result, the case was
transferred to the new Special Criminal Court, which came into operation on 17 October
2012 and became the only court competent to hear Mr. Olanguena’s cases, given that it was
supposed to take over cases that had already spent more than four years before Mfoundi
High Court.
22.
The source describes the Special Criminal Court as a new court created in 2011 for
the apparent purpose of reducing the length of judicial proceedings. In reality, it is
reportedly not independent of the executive and offers no guarantees to defendants, under
either Cameroonian or international law.
23.
The case, which had been interrupted at the point where the verdict was about to be
announced, restarted before the Special Criminal Court in 2013 on both charges, despite
four years of proceedings before the Mfoundi High Court. The source also reports that the
2 Judgment No. 339/ADD/CRIM of 6 July 2011; and reference judgment No. 108/CRIM/ADD of
13 October 2011.
3 Judgment No. 41/P of 15 March 2012.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
4
GE.25-07363
three charges dismissed by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were reintroduced
against Mr. Olanguena before the new court.
24.
On 14 June 2013, Mr. Olanguena was sentenced by the Special Criminal Court to
15 years’ imprisonment on the three charges previously dismissed.4 The source adds that
the charges were misappropriation of public funds by association, an offence it claims does
not exist in Cameroonian law or elsewhere.
25.
In response to an appeal in cassation by the defence, the Supreme Court dismissed
the charge of misappropriation of public funds by association and reduced the sentence to
10 years’ imprisonment.5
26.
On 12 August 2013, the Special Criminal Court handed down its judgment in the
case involving the two charges on which the High Court had been prevented from ruling by
the public prosecution, finding him guilty of one charge and not guilty of the other.6
27.
With regard to the charge concerning misappropriated medicines that was the
subject of the separation order, the source explains that on 3 October 2012, the examining
judge of the Mfoundi High Court referred the case to the Special Criminal Court. To date,
no judgment has been handed down in this case.
28.
Mr. Olanguena is still in detention. He has been under hospital care since July 2019
to treat the after-effects of an assault in his cell during a mutiny in Kondengui central prison
in Yaoundé.
(iii)
Legal analysis
29.
The source argues that Mr. Olanguena’s detention is arbitrary under categories I, II
and III of the methods of work of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
30.
The source claims that there is no legal basis for Mr. Olanguena’s detention, since
his arrest was carried out without a warrant, in conditions that did not respect his dignity,
and he was not immediately brought before a judge.
31.
The source recalls that an arrest without a warrant and without an order from the
judicial authorities is arbitrary, as is the ensuing detention. 7 In the case at hand,
Mr. Olanguena was arrested on 31 March 2008 without an order of any kind being
presented, and without his being informed of the reasons for his arrest.
32.
The source argues that 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 under
article 10 of the Covenant gives rise to requirements concerning conditions of detention.
The source also refers to 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 source
also points out that the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) set standards for conditions of detention and hygiene.
33.
In the present case, the source maintains that the requirement of humanity and
respect for human dignity was constantly violated, particularly during police custody, and
that the conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading. Mr. Olanguena was forced to
sleep on a mattress on the floor and to share his cell with a former member of the
Government. The lights were on constantly in the cell, which was also unsanitary, lacking
in any facilities and infested with mosquitoes. In addition, during the period of police
4 Judgment No. 014/CRIM/TCS of 14 June 2013.
5 Judgment No. 002/SSP of 5 August 2015.
6 Judgment No. 12/CRIM/TCS of 12 August 2013. The appeal filed against this judgment was
dismissed by judgment No. 003/SSP of 4 April 2017.
7 See opinions No. 38/2013, No. 10/2015, No. 15/2015 and No. 46/2017. See also Titiahonjo v.
Cameroon (CCPR/C/91/D/1186/2003).
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
GE.25-07363
5
custody, images of Mr. Olanguena lying on the floor were broadcast on the main news
programme on national television, in violation of 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 accordance with article 10 of the Covenant.
34.
The source reports that, based on news reports, conditions at Kondengui Central
Prison are known to be far from adequate. Mr. Olanguena spent seven years in an
eight-person cell with bunk beds, with little daylight, near a large rubbish bin and an
unsanitary septic tank, and exposed to the noise, nuisance and smell of drugs coming from
the neighbouring areas of the prison. The source notes that, given these circumstances,
Mr. Olanguena’s eyesight deteriorated and he is at risk of losing the sight in his left eye.
35.
According to the source, Mr. Olanguena has had an individual cell since 2016.
Nevertheless, it was in this cell that he suffered a violent assault during a mutiny on the
night of 19 July 2019. The source reports that, after several hours, he was evacuated to
Yaoundé Central Hospital for treatment. Since then, he has been under psychiatric care at
the hospital for post-traumatic injuries sustained during the attack.
36.
The source maintains that, according to article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone
arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge. It refers
to the jurisprudence of the Working Group, which concluded that detention was arbitrary
when a person had been held without being brought before a judge for 20 days, and that his
detention thus had no legal basis.8 In the case at hand, Mr. Olanguena was held in police
custody for 10 days before being brought before a judge.
b.
Category II
37.
The source argues that Mr. Olanguena’s detention is arbitrary and falls under
category II as it is a consequence of the exercise of his right to take part in the conduct of
public affairs of his country and is in violation of article 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 25 of the Covenant. The source maintains that Mr. Olanguena’s
arrest and detention stem directly from the exercise of his right to participate in the conduct
of his country’s public affairs in the context of Operation Épervier. According to the
source, the arrests made during this period were identified by the Human Rights Committee
as a matter of major concern in its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of
Cameroon. The Committee also expressed concern about the endemic nature of corruption,
reports of routine extortion by public authorities, including those in the police, judicial, tax,
education and health sectors, and allegations of the exploitation and misuse of
anti-corruption measures to target certain prominent individuals, including political
figures.9
38.
The source maintains that the real reason behind Mr. Olanguena’s arrest and
detention is clear, since as of 2005, he had been identified as part of a group of prominent
persons with ambitions to accede to the presidency in 2011, when the President’s second
term expired.
c.
Category III
39.
The source affirms that Mr. Olanguena’s detention falls under category III, in view
of the seriousness of the violations of his right to a fair trial.
40.
The source states that in 2010, several members of the Government made public
statements in which they affirmed the presumed guilt of the individuals arrested during
Operation Épervier, and seriously undermined Mr. Olanguena’s presumption of innocence,
in violation of article 14 (2) of the Covenant.
41.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, responding to a question about
the pending cases, including those involving Mr. Olanguena, is quoted as saying:
8 See opinion No. 38/2014. See also opinion No. 38/2013.
9 CCPR/C/CMR/CO/5, para. 9.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
6
GE.25-07363
“I challenge anyone to prove that those arrested were innocent […]. Those who say they are
innocent did a good job of hiding what they stole.”
42.
The Minister of Communications, the Government Spokesperson, also stated at a
press conference: “All the corrupt individuals arrested as part of Operation Épervier
misused public funds because they aspired to the highest office of the nation, forgetting that
the statutes of the Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement, 10 of which they are
members, stipulate that the President of the party is the natural candidate for the
presidential election.”
43.
The source also cites the jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights which, in a case before it concerning a prominent Cameroonian person also
arrested during Operation Épervier, declared:
In the present Communication, the Commission notes that the statements
made by the Cameroonian Minister of Justice and Minister of Communication
clearly refer to a group of former political figures detained as part of the “Operation
Sparrow Hawk”, including the Complainant. Regarding the posts occupied, the
Minister of Justice has direct links with the judicial and prosecuting authorities
while the Minister of Communication speaks officially on behalf of the Government
of the Respondent State.
Regarding the substance of the statements, the terms “theft”, “embezzlement”
and “are not innocent” used by these authorities clearly denote a presumption of
guilt. Lastly, these statements were made when the Complainant was still awaiting a
final judgement. The Commission thus concludes that the Complainant’s right under
Article 7 (1) (b) of the [African] Charter [on Human and Peoples’ Rights] has been
violated.11
44.
The source argues that by violating the presumption of innocence, the government
authorities not only formalized the political nature of the proceedings under judicial
pretexts, but also publicly affirmed their desire to influence the judges.
45.
The source also recalls that, at the end of his investigation, the examining judge of
the Mfoundi High Court ordered the proceedings to be separated on 21 August 2009. It
argues in this respect that the separation of proceedings is not provided for by law and
consequently considers that separation in these circumstances is an abnormal practice
which consists of multiplying the number of proceedings.
46.
Furthermore, the source maintains that, in his referral order, the examining judge
introduced new charges against Mr. Olanguena, changing the three original charges of
unjustified expenditure and undelivered materials to offences of misappropriation through
violation of public procurement regulations. By amending the charges without a request for
additional charges to be brought by the public prosecutor, as required under article 169 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, and without informing the accused so that he could present
his defence, the judge harmed the fundamental rights of the defence, according to the
source.
47.
The source recalls that the Court of Appeal of the Centre Region dismissed the new
charges against Mr. Olanguena. 12 On 15 March 2012, the Supreme Court declared
inadmissible the appeal in cassation lodged by the public prosecutor’s office against this
judgment of the Court of Appeal, thereby rendering the Court of Appeal’s decision to
cancel the charges irrevocable and giving it the force of res judicata. 13 The source
maintains that this jurisprudence was subsequently ignored.
48.
The source reports that, despite the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Court
of Appeal, the public prosecutor’s office decided to recommence proceedings on the three
10 The ruling party.
11 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Jean-Marie Atangana Mebara v. Cameroon,
communication No. 416/12, August 2015, paras. 102 and 103.
12 Reference judgment No. 108/CRIM/ADD of 13 October 2011.
13 Judgment No. 41/P of 15 March 2012.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
GE.25-07363
7
cancelled charges, without any new evidence and in violation of the law. Since the facts had
already been investigated and the charges had been dismissed, res judicata and the non bis
in idem principle should have prohibited a new judicial investigation from being initiated.
According to the source, this new investigation was thus carried out in violation of the law,
in particular articles 3 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection, it cites
Supreme Court jurisprudence, according to which once an investigating judge’s order has
acquired the force of res judicata, he or she cannot proceed with a new investigation into
the same facts against the same defendants without violating the non bis in idem principle.14
49.
The source recalls that Mr. Olanguena’s defence counsel had filed an application for
the annulment of the proceedings based on charges that had been dismissed but illegally
re-initiated. The objection was joined to the merits. In addition, Mr. Olanguena’s witness
list was rejected.
50.
The source reports that Mr. Olanguena clearly explained to the judges that the
resources transferred to partner associations for health programmes were budgeted grants
for planned activities, and that these grants were included in the Finance Act and in the
grant agreement concluded with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
He also demonstrated that the procedure for this transfer expenditure had nothing to do with
a public procurement procedure, but the recipient of the subsidy was nevertheless required
to justify its use. Mr. Olanguena presented supporting documents and the external audits
confirming the effective services provided by partner associations.
51.
The source claims that, rejecting any technical explanation, the Special Criminal
Court convicted Mr. Olanguena for an alleged violation of public procurement rules which,
according to the source, does not exist in Cameroon or elsewhere. Mr. Olanguena was
sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and a monetary penalty of repayment of the grants he
had allegedly misappropriated, but which in fact had been duly allocated and justified
within the framework of the health programmes. The prison sentence was subsequently
reduced to 10 years by the Supreme Court, which reproduced the erroneous reasoning of
the Special Criminal Court.
52.
The source reports that serious violations of the right to a fair trial occurred during
the proceedings against Mr. Olanguena before the High Court on two charges:
(a)
Undelivered mosquito nets worth 80 million CFA francs;
(b)
The acquisition by the National AIDS Programme of copies of
Mr. Olanguena’s book Le sida en terre d’Afrique, for a total of 11.79 million CFA francs.
53.
The defence demonstrated that neither Mr. Olanguena nor his colleagues were
responsible for the payment of 80 million CFA francs made by the Treasury to a suspect
supplier for the undelivered mosquito nets. According to the source, the supplier actually
confessed to having forged documents with fake or scanned signatures before taking flight.
The source maintains that the Ministry of Finance officials who validated and settled this
file had violated payment procedures. Hard evidence, including a report by a handwriting
expert, established that the Minister of Health and his administration had nothing to do with
the fraud that had taken place at the Ministry of Finance.
54.
With regard to the acquisition of the books, the manager of the National AIDS
Programme, acting within the scope of his authority, concluded his purchase directly with
the publisher, in accordance with the applicable rules and without involving
Mr. Olanguena.
55.
The source recalls that, at the hearing at which the judgment was to be handed down
on 15 October 2012, the public prosecutor was absent from the courtroom, meaning that the
Mfoundi High Court could not deliver its verdict. The judges therefore extended their
deliberations until the following day, but once again the public prosecutor failed to show up
to the courtroom. According to the source, the public prosecutor’s office blocked the
verdict for a strategic reason: to secure the transfer of the case to the new Special Criminal
14 Judgment No. 0314/P of 24 October 1961, BACS No. 5, p. 209. See also judgment No. 205/P of
2 June 1970, BACS No. 22, p. 2663.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
8
GE.25-07363
Court, which came into operation on 17 October 2012 and became the only court competent
to hear Mr. Olanguena’s cases.
56.
The source reports that the case concerning the allegedly undelivered medicines
from the National Procurement Centre for Essential Drugs and Medical Devices, which had
been frozen since the first investigating judge’s separation order was issued in August
2009, was referred to the Special Criminal Court, and a new investigating judge attached to
that court was appointed.
57.
In 2017, the investigating judge of the Special Criminal Court notified
Mr. Olanguena of an expert report that had been commissioned by the first investigating
judge and entered in the case file in June 2009. Mr. Olanguena was notified of this report
eight years after the fact. A second expert opinion was requested and accepted, and
Mr. Olanguena was informed of that report in 2018.
58.
The source maintains that, apart from these two notifications of the two expert
reports, the examining judge of the Special Criminal Court did not carry out any of the
investigative acts required under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Olanguena was
neither heard as a defendant nor confronted with the numerous witnesses called. A referral
order was nevertheless issued on 21 May 2019.
59.
The source notes that the length of the proceedings is in breach of the time limits
prescribed by law: more than 11 years of investigation in all (from 2008 to 2019), even
though the investigation is not to exceed 18 months for the High Court and 6 months for the
Special Criminal Court. 15 It recalls that between the separation order in 2009 and the
transfer of the case to the Special Criminal Court in 2012, the first investigating judge did
not take any investigative steps, while from 2013 to 2019, the second investigating judge
never interviewed Mr. Olanguena or confronted him with a witness.
60.
The source maintains that these delays cannot be justified and denounces the
behaviour of the authorities, which it considers to be solely responsible for them. In
particular, it points out that what was at stake in the dispute should have prevented these
delays, given that Mr. Olanguena was in pretrial detention and was in no way the source of
the delay in processing the case.
61.
The source also notes that several attempts by Mr. Olanguena’s defence lawyers to
assert their client’s rights were unsuccessful, including petitions for the annulment of the
proceedings on grounds of public order, and a recent petition for habeas corpus. The latter
was rejected by the judge in June 2023, three months after it was submitted.
Mr. Olanguena’s lawyers appealed against this decision immediately, but 18 months later,
the Court of Appeal had still not delivered its judgment, in violation of article 587 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which sets a maximum deadline of 10 days for the President
of the Court of Appeal to rule on habeas corpus requests.
62.
The source claims that the procedural requirements for the investigation phase were
ignored or violated by the investigating judge, for the following reasons:
(a)
There is no record of the hearing by the examining judge;
(b)
There is no record of any confrontation between the accused and the many
prosecution witnesses heard under the various rogatory commissions, including the State
inspectors who authored the report on which the prosecution is based;
(c)
The second examining judge did not take the trouble to interview
Mr. Olanguena as a defendant, but merely interpreted the minutes of a hearing with the first
examining judge in October 2008;
15 Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 221 and Act No. 2012/011 of 16 July 2012 amending and
supplementing certain provisions of Act No. 2011/028 of 14 December 2011 on the establishment of
the Special Criminal Court, art. 9 (3). See also article 9 (3) of the Covenant, article 6 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the preamble to the Cameroonian Constitution.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
GE.25-07363
9
(d)
Several of the assumptions made by the prosecution imply both a
presumption of guilt and the criminal responsibility of others, which the source considers to
be legally unacceptable;
(e)
Mr. Olanguena was not able to exercise his right to request that the expert
appointed by the examining judge carry out certain research or hear persons likely to
provide technical information, pursuant to article 214 (1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.16
63.
According to the source, the failure to interview Mr. Olanguena and confront him
with the witnesses meant that the investigation was purely for the prosecution, which is
tantamount to an absence of investigation.
64.
The source recalls that the first examining judge ordered the proceedings to be
separated on 21 August 2009. It asserts that the reason for this order was so that he could
continue his judicial investigation beyond the legal deadline of 18 months, even though he
had not done anything for four years, i.e. until the case was transferred to the Special
Criminal Court in 2012. As for the second examining judge, from the Special Criminal
Court, he issued his referral order after having kept the file for seven years without
interviewing Mr. Olanguena or confronting him with witnesses.
65.
The source recalls article 9 (3) of the Covenant, pursuant to which Mr. Olanguena
should have been brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to
exercise judicial power and should have been tried within a reasonable time or released.
(b)
Response from the Government
66.
On 20 December 2024, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning
Mr. Olanguena to the Government, requesting it to provide detailed information about him
by 18 February 2025 and to ensure his physical and mental integrity.
67.
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.
2.
Discussion
68.
The Working Group notes that a communication concerning Mr. Olanguena was
also submitted to the Human Rights Committee in 2015, which adopted its Views in 2018.17
The Human Rights Committee is mentioned in paragraph 33 (d) (ii) of the Working
Group’s methods of work as one of the treaty bodies with the function of dealing with
individual cases, and with which the Working Group must coordinate.
69.
Having compared the circumstances of the present case with the Views adopted by
the Human Rights Committee, the Working Group considers that the person and facts
involved in the two cases are identical. Both concern the arrest of Mr. Olanguena on
31 March 2008 by the Cameroonian authorities and the proceedings that followed.
70.
Although some of Mr. Olanguena’s allegations were deemed inadmissible by the
Human Rights Committee, the latter nevertheless examined the merits of the allegations
made under articles 9 (3) and 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant concerning the excessive delay in
the conduct of the proceedings against him,18 allegations which the source reiterates in its
communication to the Working Group.
16 See also European Court of Human Rights, Mantovanelli v. France, application No. 21497/93,
judgment, 18 March 1997, para. 13; and European Court of Human Rights, Cottin v. Belgium,
application No. 48386/99, judgment, 2 June 2005, para. 30.
17 Olanguena Awono v. Cameroon (CCPR/C/123/D/2660/2015).
18 As the Committee concluded that there had been a violation of article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant, it
did not examine the complaints alleging a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant; Olanguena
Awono v. Cameroon, para. 10.4.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/16
10
GE.25-07363
71.
The Working Group therefore considers that Mr. Olanguena’s case has already been
examined by the Human Rights Committee and should be transmitted to it, in accordance
with paragraph 33 (d) (ii) of its methods of work, so that the Committee may take such
follow-up action as it considers appropriate.
[Adopted on 3 April 2025]