The court noted that while the efforts of the Guinean authorities to host refugees were commendable, the allegations that the government instigated and directly discriminated against Sierra Leonean refugees presented a picture of serious human rights abuses which contravened the African Charter and the other international human rights instruments to which Guinea was a party.
According to the court, the statements made under oath by several refugees indicated that their refugee camps were direct targets and taken together with accounts of numerous other abuses, constituted tangible evidence that the Sierra Leonean refugees in that situation had been targeted on the basis of their nationality and had been forced to return to Sierra Leone where their lives and liberty were under threat from the on-going war.
The African Commission appreciated the legitimate concern of the Guinean Government in view of the threats to its national security posed by the attacks from Sierra Leone and Liberia with a flow of rebels and arms across the borders.
As such, the Government of Guinea was entitled to prosecute persons that they believed posed a security threat to the State. However, the court concluded that the massive violations of the human rights of refugees as outlined in the communication constituted a flagrant violation of the provisions of the African Charter.
Refugees; discrimination against refugees; human rights violations
The complainant alleged that in his speech of the 9 September 2000, delivered on radio in [the] Susu language, President Conté incited soldiers and civilians to engage in large scale discriminatory acts against Sierra Leonean refugees, the consequences of which had been that these persons were the direct victims of harassment, deportations, looting, stealing, beatings, rapes, arbitrary arrests and assassinations. It was further alleged that the President made no effort to distinguish between refugees and rebels and that the Government was therefore directly responsible for the violation of this fundamental precept of international law: Non-discrimination. The complainant alleged that articles 2, 4, 5, 12(5) and 14 of the African Charter had been violated.
The African Commission found that the situation prevailing in Guinea during the period under consideration led to certain human rights violations.
The Republic of Guinea was found to be in violation of arts 2, 4, 5, 12(5) and 14 of the African Charter and AU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, and the 1969 OAU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa.
It recommended that a Joint Commission of the Sierra Leonean and the Guinea Governments be established to assess the losses by various victims with a view to compensate the victims.
Those who drafted the [African] Charter considered large scale expulsion as a special threat to human rights. In consequence, the action of a State targeting specific national, racial, ethnic or religious groups was generally qualified as discriminatory in the sense as it had no legal basis.