konate v burkina faso judgment on reparations application 0042013 2016 afchpr 40 3 june 2016

konate v burkina faso judgment on reparations application 0042013 2016 afchpr 40 3 june 2016

The Respondent State violated the Applicant's rights by criminalizing defamation with custodial sentences, imposing excessive fines and damages, and suspending his newspaper, contrary to international human rights standards. The Applicant is entitled to restitution and compensation for material and moral damages, but only to the extent proven and reasonable based on equity.

Citation
konate v burkina faso judgment on reparations application 0042013 2016 afchpr 40 3 june 2016
Parties
Applicant: Lohé Issa Konaté; Respondent: Burkina Faso
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
3 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Reparations / Judgment on Reparations
Outcome
Application for reparations partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Reparations, Criminal Sanctions, Due Process
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law International Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Reparations Criminal Sanctions Due Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lohé Issa Konaté

Applicant

Burkina Faso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Reparations / Judgment on Reparations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's rights under Article 9 of the African Charter, Article 19 of the ICCPR, and Article 66(2)(c) of the Revised ECOWAS Treaty by criminalizing defamation and imposing custodial sentences, excessive fines, and suspension of publication.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is entitled to restitution and compensation for material and moral damages suffered as a result of these violations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent State violated the Applicant's rights by criminalizing defamation with custodial sentences, imposing excessive fines and damages, and suspending his newspaper, contrary to international human rights standards. The Applicant is entitled to restitution and compensation for material and moral damages, but only to the extent proven and reasonable based on equity.

Court Disposition

Application for reparations partly allowed.

Orders

  • Respondent State to expunge all criminal convictions against the Applicant from judicial records.
  • Respondent State to revise downwards the amount of fines, damages, and costs charged against the Applicant to comply with necessity and proportionality.