The Burkinabe Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement v Burkina Faso

Case full name: Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé,  Ernest Zongo and Blaise Ilboudo and The Burkinabe Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement v  Burkina Faso (Application No 013/2011) Judgment on Reparation. Judgment date 5 June 2015  Available on https://www.african-court.org/cpmt/stroage/app/upload 

Court name African court on Human and peoples Rights 

Bench Composition the judges who sat on Application No.013/2011 Judge Gerard Niyungeko,  Judge Fatash Ouguergouz, Judge El Hadji Guisse, Judge Kimelabalou Aha. These judges formed  the panel and delivered decision. 

Date of Judgment African Court on Human and peoples right 15 June 2015 Done at Arusha. Parties involved  

Petitioner: The petitioners in the case were the Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo,  Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo, and Blaise Ilboudo, together with the Burkinabe Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement (MBDHP), who brought their complaint  before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights against the Republic of Burkina  Faso (Application No. 013/2011). They alleged that the State violated several provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, particularly the rights to life, fair trial, and  freedom of expression, by failing to conduct an effective investigation and prosecution into the  assassination of journalist Norbert Zongo and his companions. The petitioners argued that the  government’s inaction constituted a denial of justice and created a climate of fear and impunity  for crimes against journalists. 

Respondent: Republic of Burkina Faso, which was accused before the African Court on  Human and Peoples’ Rights of violating its obligations under the African Charter on Human  and Peoples’ Rights. hereby breaching Articles 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9(2) of the Charter relating to the  right to life, equality before the law, fair trial, and freedom of expression. 

Facts of the case 

The case arose from the assassination of Norbert Zongo, a prominent Burkinabe investigative  journalist and editor of the newspaper L’Indépendant, who was killed on 13 December 1998 along with his younger brother Ernest Zongo, colleague Blaise Ilboudo, and driver Abdoulaye 

Nikiema. Their bodies were found burned in a car near Sapouy, southern Burkina Faso. Before  his death, Norbert Zongo had been investigating the suspicious killing of David Ouédraogo, the  driver of François Compaoré, brother of the then-President Blaise Compaoré, and had  published articles exposing corruption and political abuse of power. Following the murders, the  government launched an investigation that was slow, incomplete, and politically influenced— only one suspect was ever prosecuted, and the case was later dismissed. For more than a decade,  justice was denied, and the perpetrators enjoyed impunity. As a result, the victims’ families and  the Burkinabe Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement (MBDHP) brought the matter before  the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arguing that Burkina Faso violated its duty  under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to protect the rights to life, fair  trial, and freedom of expression by failing to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the  killings. 

Issue raised 

• violation of Article 1 (State Obligation): Whether Burkina Faso failed to take  appropriate measures to give effect to the rights guaranteed under the African Charter,  by neglecting to properly investigate and prosecute those responsible for the killings. 
• Violation of Article 3 (Equality before the Law): Whether the victims were denied  equal protection of the law because of political interference and selective justice, leading  to impunity for perpetrators connected to powerful figures. 
• Violation of Article 4 (Right to Life): Whether the State failed in its duty to protect the  lives of Norbert Zongo and his companions by not ensuring accountability for their  deaths. 
• Violation of Article 7 (Right to a Fair Trial): Whether the prolonged and ineffective  investigation amounted to a denial of justice and the right to have one’s cause heard  within a reasonable time by a competent court. 
• Violation of Article 9(2) (Freedom of Expression): Whether the State’s failure to bring  the killers of a journalist to justice created a climate of fear and intimidation, thereby  violating press freedom and discouraging journalists from exercising their right to free  expression.
• Jurisdiction and Admissibility Issues: Whether the African Court had temporal  jurisdiction (ratione temporis), given that the assassination occurred before the Court  became operational; the Court held that the ongoing failure to deliver justice constituted  a continuous violation, granting it jurisdiction. 

Argument of the parties. 

Petitioner (Victims’ Families and MBDHP): 

– Argued that the State failed in its duty of due diligence to investigate and prosecute the  perpetrators. 

– Claimed that the prolonged delay in judicial proceedings violated their right to a fair trial under  Article 7 of the Charter. 

– Asserted that the failure to protect journalists and prosecute those responsible created a climate  of fear, infringing upon freedom of expression (Article 9). 

– Requested reparations and measures to ensure non-repetition. 

Respondent (Republic of Burkina Faso): 

– Contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis because the events occurred  before it became operational. 

– Claimed that the government had taken necessary steps to investigate but was hindered by a  lack of evidence. 

– Denied responsibility for restricting media freedom or for failing to protect journalists. – Maintained that the national judicial system had acted within its capacity. Judgement /final decision 

The Court found that Burkina Faso had breached its obligations under the African Charter Article  1 – Obligation to recognize and protect rights, Article 3 Equality before the law; Article 7 Right  to a fair trial, Article 9(2) Freedom of expression by failing to act with due diligence to  investigate and prosecute those responsible. The judgment emphasized that justice delayed  constitutes a continuing violation of human rights, particularly when the State’s inaction fosters  impunity and suppresses freedom of expression. 

The Court ordered Burkina Faso to: 

– Reopen the investigation into the assassination of Norbert Zongo and his companions;

– Prosecute and punish those responsible; 

– Provide reparations to the victims’ families for the moral and psychological harm suffered; – Publicize the judgment nationally and internationally to acknowledge the violations; – Report back within six months on the implementation of the orders. 

Legal Reasoning  

The African Court dismissed the jurisdictional objections and held that Burkina Faso had  ongoing obligations under the Charter. Its reasoning relied on several key legal principles: 

1. State Duty of Due Diligence (Article 1): The Court reaffirmed that states have a positive  obligation to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection and enforcement of human  rights. The failure to investigate and prosecute constituted a continuing violation. 
2. Right to a Fair Trial (Article 7): The prolonged and ineffective investigation was deemed a  denial of justice and violated the victims’ right to have their cause heard within a reasonable  time. 
3. Freedom of Expression (Article 9(2)): The Court emphasized that failure to investigate the  killing of a journalist created a “chilling effect” on the media and society, discouraging  journalists from exercising their right to free expression. 
4. Continuous Violation Principle: The Court reasoned that the violation persisted as long as  justice was not delivered, giving it temporal jurisdiction over the matter. 
5. International Human Rights Instruments: The Court relied on the ICCPR, Universal  Declaration of Human Rights, and earlier African Commission decisions, reinforcing the  universal obligation to investigate violations of fundamental rights. 

Conclusion and reflection 

The Norbert Zongo case represents a major advancement in African human rights jurisprudence.  The African Court’s decision reaffirmed that impunity for human rights violations cannot be  tolerated, and that states must actively protect journalists and uphold freedom of expression.

The ruling also demonstrates the link between civil-political rights and socio-economic rights, as  press freedom and access to justice are essential for transparency, public accountability, and  democratic governance. By holding Burkina Faso accountable, the Court strengthened the  principle that justice delayed is justice denied and set a regional precedent for protecting human  rights defenders. 

This judgment continues to inspire advocacy for state accountability, judicial independence, and  media freedom across Africa. It remains a reminder that freedom of expression and access to  justice are not privileges but enforceable human rights guaranteed under both regional and  international law. 

Reference(S): 

• African Union, African Charter on Human and peoples’ Rights(adopted 27 June 1981,  entered into force 21 October 1986)  
• Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo  and Blaise Ilboudo and The Burkinabe Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement v Burkina  Faso (Application No 013/2011) Judgment on Reparation. Judgment date 5 June 2015