The African Committee of Experts on the Right and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) has ruled on admissibility of two cases brought against the Arab Republic of Egypt. Before dealing with the admissibility of these cases, the Committee has clarified itself on reservations placed by the Arab Republic of Egypt on article 44 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC/Children’s Charter). In a letter sent to the State party on 30 January 2017, the ACERWC clarified that the reservations entered by the State Party in relation to Article 44 of the Children’s Charter is not compatible with the purpose and object of the ACRWC. The ACERWC reasoned that the reservations are incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty, and in particular contrary to article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention, mainly because the provision subjected to reservation was among the core rationales for the creation of the treaty. Furthermore the Committee explained that placing a reservation on procedural matters of a human rights treaty is generally incompatible with the purpose and objective of the treaty under international human rights law. Following the exchange of this dialogue, the Committee continued with the proceedings of the Communication.
One of the communications was brought by Ahmed Bassiouny represented by advocate Dalia Lotfy and Amal against The Government of Arab Republic of Egypt. In this communication, the complainants alleged that Ahmed Bassiouny who was 15 years at the time of arrest, was detained unlawfully and faced torture as well as ill-treatment in correctional facilities. This communication was declared inadmissible by the Committee on the ground that the complainants have not exhausted local remedies.
The second communication which was brought by Sohaib Emad represented by advocate Dalia Lotfy and Samar Emad is concerned with unlawful detention, ill-treatment and torture of a fifteen years child Sohaib Emad. This communication was also declared inadmissible by the ACERWC on the ground that the complainants did not exhaust local remedies.
The full decision can be found on: