The case Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Inter-Rights vs. Egypt was decided

by the African Commission on the 16th of December 2011.

Why is the case important?

The case deals with the State duty to protect against interference with the right to freedom

of expression and to guarantee access to information.

The case illustrates the method of the African Commission of concretizing the possible justification

of State interferences with Article 9 of the Van Jule Charter, with firstly referring to

the Commission's Declaration of Principles on Freedom and Expression in Africa, which

fulfills a supplementary function.

Secondly, the Commission controls a possible justification according to the so-called Clawback

Clause within the law Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Van Jule Charter lays down.

Principle facts.

The Egyptian movement for change, called Kefaya, organized a demonstration to stand up for

a multi-candidate presidential election.

The protesters were, among others, surrendered by the police.

Violence broke out as the supporters of the party attacked the supporters of Kefaya.

The incidents of insults, violence, intimidation and sexual harassment occurred in the presence

of high-ranked officers and riot police without their intervention.

Four female journalists were attending the demonstration to either proceed without participation,

report on the demonstration or participate in it.

The four journalists and victims were beaten, sexually assaulted, humiliated and robbed

by the supporters of the party.

Afterwards, all the victims were told to withdraw their complaint anonymously or by the state

intelligence officers.

The injuries of the four victims were confirmed by hospitals.

The Commission's finding.

The Commission determined that the right to freedom of expression and opinion is a fundamental

human right.

It is one of the most crucial cornerstones of a democratic society and has to be protected

and respected by state authorities.

This is especially the case if freedom of expression is linked to political participation.

According to the Commission's previous case law, a higher degree of tolerance is expected

when political speech is at stake.

Public figures, government and government officials have to tolerate a greater degree

of criticism if the expression at stake contributes to transparency and accountability.

In the Commission's view, Article 9 of the Vanduul Charter is not an absolute right.

According to the Commission's declaration on principles of freedom and of expression

in Africa, it can be restricted under certain circumstances.

Proposals 1 and 2 of the declaration determine that state interferences with freedom of expression

must be provided by law, be necessary and serve illegitimate interests.

With these requirements, the Commission adopts the same test for controlling the justification

of state interferences the European Convention on Human Rights lays down in Article 10 paragraph 2.

The Commission found that the alleged operation was not in accordance with principle 2, Article

2 of the declaration because none of the requirements was satisfied.

Subsequently, the victim's right to freedom of expression and opinion was violated by

the state interference.

Another possibility to restrict the freedom is by the praise of Article 9 paragraph 2

of the Vanduul Charter within the law.

The Commission found that this condition must be interpreted in reference to international norms.

In this context, the African Commission referred to a decision of the Inter-American Court