Forum Against Harmful Practices and Others v Republic of Sierra Leone (ECW/CCJ/APP/16/23; ECW/CCJ/JUD/40/25) [2025] ECOWASCJ 33 (8 July 2025)

COMMUNITY COURT OF nJSTICE, ECOWAS COUR DE nJSTICE DE LA COMMUNATE, CEDEAO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTICA DA COMMUNIDADE, CEDEAO No. 1164 JOSEPH GOMWALK STREET, GUDU 900 l IO FCT, ABUJA NIGERIA . PMB 567 GARKI, ABUJA TEL: 234 -9 -78 22 80 l Website: wwwcourtecowas.org THE COMMUNITY COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES (ECOWAS) In the Matter of FORUM AGAINST HARMFUL PRACTICES AND OTHERS (APPLICANTS) V REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE (RESPONDENT) Application No. ECW/CCJ/APP/16/23; Judg 't No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/40/25 JUDGMENT ABUJA 8 WLY 2025 THE COMMUNITY COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES (ECOWAS) HOLDEN AT ABUJA, NIGERIA Application No. ECW/CCJ/APP/16/23; Judg't No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/40/25 BETWEEN FORUM AGAINST HARMFUL PRACTICES AND OTHERS (APPLICANT) AND REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE (RESPONDENT) COMPOSITION OF THE COURT: Hon. Justice Ricardo C. M. GON<;ALVES Hon. Justice Gberi-Be OUATTARA -Presiding - Member Hon. Justice Edward Amoako ASANTE - Judge Rapporteur ASSISTED BY: Dr. Yaouza OURO-SAMA - Chief Registrar REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES: Eleanor Thompson, Esq - Counsel for APPLICANT Olive B. A Horton, Esq -Counsel for RESPONDENT I. JUDGMENT 1. This is a judgment of the Court read virtually in open court pursuant to Article 8( 1) of the Practice Directions on Electronic Case Management and Virtual Court Sessions, 2020. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES 2. The first Applicant, Forum Against Harmful Practices (FAHP), is a coalition of Sierra Leonean civil society organisations formed in 2014 to combat female genital mutilation and other harmful practices against girls in Sierra Leone. Its address is 68 Bai Bureh Road, Texaco, Freetown. 3. The Second Applicant, We Are Purposeful, is a non-governmental organisation based in Freetown, Sierra Leone, whose mandate is the promotion and protection of the rights of girls. Its registered office is No. 2, Lewis Drive, Hill Station, Freetown, Republic of Sierra Leone. 4. The Third Applicant is Ms. Kadijatu Balaima Allieu, a citizen of Sierra Leone who says she is a victim of female genital mutilation (FGM). 5. The Respondent, the Republic of Sierra Leone, 1s an ECOWAS Member State. III. INTRODUCTION Subject Matter of the Proceedings 6. The Applicants allege that the Respondent has not taken appropriate legislative measures to criminalise the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) in Sierra Leone. This has led to the third Applicant, Ms. Kadijatu Balaima Allieu, and many other women being subjected to FGM and thereby suffering severe emotional and physical harm without any remedy. The Applicants contend, and request the Court to declare, that the continued practice of FGM in Sierra Leone violates the rights of women and girls including their rights to dignity, security of the person, and the Respondent' s obligation to eliminate all harmful practices against women. IV. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 7. The Initiating Application, dated 20 April 2023, was filed at the Registry of the Court and served electronically on the Respondent the same date. 8. On 8 January 2024, Applicants filed an application asking the Court to grant default judgment. It was served on the Respondent the same day. 9. On 16 January 2024, Respondent filed an application for extension of time within which to file a Defence, together with its prepared Statement of Defence dated 10 January 2024. These were served on the Applicants the same day. 10. On 16 February 2024, the Applicants filed a Reply to the Respondent's defence which was served on the Respondent the same day. 11. At a virtual session of the Court on 27 September 2024 during which all the parties were represented, Applicants' Counsel withdrew the application for default judgment. With no opposition from the Applicants, the Court granted Respondent's application for extension of time and deemed its documents as duly filed. The Court then heard the parties on the merits of the case and adjourned for deliberation and judgment. V. APPLICANTS' CASE (a)Summary of Facts 12. The Applicants say that FGM which is the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons is prevalent in Sierra Leone and is deeply entrenched in the social and cultural norms of many communities. 13 . Applicants state that FGM can cause severe pain, excessive bleeding (hemorrhage), genital tissue swelling, fever, infections such as tetanus, urinary problems, wound healing problems, injury to surrounding genital tissue, shock, and even death. In extreme cases, it can cause urinary, vaginal, menstrual, surgery, and psychological issues. 14. According to the Applicants, statistics from a 2019 Demographic Health Survey revealed that 83 percent of Sierra Leonean women and girls aged between 15 and 49 have undergone FGM. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) estimates put the figure at 86 % for the same age group of 15 to 49. Applicants say that the practice occurs mostly between ages 10 and 14 with 71 % of women experiencing FGM by age 15. 15. Despite the prevalence of FGM in the country, the Respondent has not taken any legislative measures to outlaw the practice expressly and directly. 16. According to Applicants, Ms. Kadijatu Balaima Allieu, the third Applicant, is a well-known campaigner against FGM, an initiation rite into the Bondo Society, a traditional women's society, in her community ofKanema. The Bondo Society is a very influential society known for forcefully initiating young girls and women accused of breaking its rules. 17. The Applicants allege that on the 16 November 2016, while the third applicant was visiting one Elsie Kondolomoh to mediate a matter, she was held forcefully against her will by the said Kondolomoh and other women, and subjected to FGM. She was illegally imprisoned in Kondolomoh's house for about 3 days until she was freed by the police through the intervention of a good Samaritan and taken to a hospital for medical attention. 18. Applicants say that while on admission, the members of the Bondo Society stormed the hospital and threatened to attack it if she was not released to them. Following the threats, the Third Applicant fled to Liberia. She returned to Sierra Leone about four years later in 2020. 19 . Applicants say that since the incident, nothing has been done by the Respondent to investigate and bring the perpetrators to justice. The Third Applicant has been left frustrated by her failure to get justice, as well as the continued practice of female genital mutilation in Sierra Leone. (b) Pleas in Law 20. By way of pleas in law, the Applicants make the following submissions: 1. That the Respondent has violated Articles 2(1)(b), 4, and 5 of the Maputo Protocol for failing to take adequate measures to eradicate FGM. 11. That the Respondent has violated Article 5 of the African Charter which guarantees respect for human dignity. m. That the Respondent has violated Article 21 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. 1v. That the Respondent has violated Article 6 of the African Charter on the right to liberty and security of the human person. v. That the Respondent has violated the Third Applicant's right to an effecf e remedy. (c) Reliefs Sought 21. The Applicants seek the following reliefs from the Court: 1. A declaration that the Republic of Sierra Leone has violated its duty to take legislative and other measures to prohibit Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Sierra Leone under Articles 2(l)(b), 4, and 5 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 21 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. 11. A declaration that the Republic of Sierra Leone by its failure to take legislative and other measures to prohibit FGM in Sierra Leone has violated the right ofKadijatu Balaima Allieu to be free from FGM under Articles 2( 1 )(b ), 4 and 5 of the Maputo Protocol. 111. A declaration that the Republic of Sierra Leone has violated the rights of Kadijatu Balaima Allieu to dignity, and to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Articles 3(1) and 3(4) of the Maputo Protocol, and article 7 of the ICCPR. 1v. A declaration that the Republic of Sierra Leone has violated the rights of Kadijatu Balaima Allieu to a remedy and access to justice under the ovisions of Articles 1 and 7(1)(a) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, article 25 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 2(3) of the ICCPR. v. A declaration that the Republic of Sierra Leone has violated the right of Kadijatu Balaima Allieu to the security of the person under Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, article 4 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 9 of the ICCPR. v1. An order for the Republic of Sierra Leone to take immediate legislative action to prohibit and sanction FGM in Sierra Leone. vu. An order for the Republic of Sierra Leone to adopt such other legislative, administrative, social, and economic measures as may be necessary to ensure the eradication ofFGM of women and girls in Sierra Leone. vm. An order of financial compensation for Kadijatu Balaima Allieu in the sum of Two Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (USD 200, 000) as damages for the violations of her human rights. 1x. An order for the Republic of Sierra Leone to carry out a prompt and effective investigation into the facts of the FGM on Kadijatu Balaima Allieu, and to bring the perpetrators to justice. x. Any further order or Orders the Court deems fit to make in this the circumstances of this case. VI. RESPONDENT'S CASE (a) Summary of Facts 22. The Respondent states that it recognises the rights and freedoms of women and girls as enshrined in Article 2( 1) of the Maputo Protocol and has given effect to them by adopting appropriate legislative measures aimed at prohibiting and curbing all forms of discrimination and ham1ful practices that endanger the health and general well-being of women. 23. These, according to the Respondent, include section 27 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone and the Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Act 2022. Respondent states that there are other existing laws such as the Domestic Violence Act, Registration of Customary Marriage and Divorce Act, Devolution of Estate Act, and the Sexual Offences Act all of which contain provisions dealing with culturally harmful and discriminatory practices against women. 10 Q4 24. The Respondent further states that to modify harmful social and cultural practices, the Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Act 2022 has mandatory provisions reserving 30% of all public and private jobs for women. Additionally, it submitted a Draft Child Rights Bill to Parliament in 2022. The Bill passed through two readings before the dissolution of Parliament for elections in 2023. According to the Respondent, the Draft Child Rights Bill contains provisions that will criminalise FGM for young girls under the age of 18 years. 25. The Respondent says that it has demonstrated its commitment to implement these laws through the development of policies and plans for the protection, welfare and advancement of women. For example, the Ministry of Social Welfare has developed the National Policy on the Advancement of Women and the National Gender Mainstreaming Policy. It has also developed the National Strategic Plan (2010-2013), National Action Plan on GBV, and the National Referral Protocol on GBV aimed at implementing existing laws on gender based violence, gender equality, and women empowerment. 26. According to the Respondent, intense public education campaigns are undertaken by the Ministry of Gender and Children's Affairs with a view to eliminating harmful cultural and traditional practices and all other practices which are based on the idea of inferiority or superiority of either of the sexes. 11 ~ ~ 27. Respondent, therefore, contends that by enacting these laws which prohibit discrimination and harmful practices against women, and implementing relevant policies, it has fulfilled its obligation under Article 2(1) of the Maputo Protocol and other human rights instruments cited by the Applicant. 28. With specific reference to FGM, the Respondent states that it is a deep rooted cultural practice with values that may be useful for consenting adults who want the procedure to be done on them. In this regard, it is anatomically and aesthetically similar to labiaplasty and clitoroplasty surgeries and other cosmetic surgeries performed on women and girls in Western countries. Respondent, therefore, submits that it is important for women to have a say in decisions concerning their bodies. 29. With respect to the Third Applicant, the Respondent states that the Sierra Leone Police were instrumental in her escape and the investigation into the matter. They also helped her to seek medical attention before she left the country for Liberia. Upon her return to Sierra Leone, she initiated a Private Criminal Summons in the Magistrate Court in Kenema and there is a pending application through an Originating Summons for the matter to be transferred to Freetown. Therefore, the Respondent states that it did not violate the security and integrity of the Third Applicant, as everything was done to protect her. Further, it has not violated her right to a remedy as it has been involved in the processes to ensure that she obtains justice. 30. Accordingly, the Respondent contends that it has taken the necessary legislative and policy measures to discharge its obligations relating to the rights of women and girls. That the alleged violations of the Third Applicant's rights cannot be attributed to it since its police officers discharged their duty in securing her release and ensuring that she obtained the necessary medical attention. (b) Pleas in law 31 . Respondent submits the following points of law: (i) That the Application is inadmissible given the failure of the Applicants to prove any human rights violation by the Respondent or its agents. (ii) That the Respondent has not violated articles 2(1 )(b ), 4, 5, and 25 of the Maputo Protocol. (iii) That the Respondent has not violated articles 1, 5, 6 and 7 of the African Charter. (iv) That the Respondent has not violated article 21 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC). (v) That the Respondent has not violated articles 2(3), 7 and 9 of the ICCPR. (c) Reliefs sought 32. Respondent requests the Court for the following reliefs: 1. That the Court dismiss the whole action on the ground of [inadmissibility as the Applicants have failed to show proof that the violations alleged are the act of the Respondent or its agent pursuant to Article 10( c) of the Supplementary Protocol. 11. That the Court dismiss all the claims of the Applicants for lack of proof. iii. That costs be awarded in favour of the Respondent. iv. That the Court grant any other orders it deems fit in favour of the Respondent. VII. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 33. Article 9(4) of the Protocol of the Court provides that "[t]he Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State". The Court has held that to activate this jurisdiction, it is sufficient if the Application alleges that violations of human rights have taken place in the territory of the Respondent state and that the Respondent is responsible for those violations, but without prejudice to the determination of the claims on the merits after hearing both parties. (See Registered Trustees of Gan Allah Fulani Development Association v Federal Republic of Nigeria [ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/23], para 38 and Jack Rockson & Global Agriculture Development v Liberia [ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/24], para 40). ~ 34. The Applicants allege, inter alia, that the Respondent's failure to adopt appropriate legislative measures to prohibit the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), which is highly prevalent in Sierra Leone, and the subjection of the Third Applicant to FGM violate its obligations to protect women and girls under the African Charter, the Maputo Protocol, and other human rights treaties. Because these allegations call for the interpretation and application of the Respondent' s international human rights obligations to the facts alleged, the Court has jurisdiction under Article 9( 4) of the Protocol of the Court. VIII. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 35. Article lO(d) of the Court's Protocol requires that an application alleging human rights violations must satisfy three main admissibility criteria: (a) the applicant' s victim status or standing, (b) the non anonymity of the application; and ( c) the non-pendency of the matter before another international court or tribunal. (Aziagbede Kokou & Others v Republic of Togo [2013] CCJELR 167, para 18). 36. Regarding standing as an admissibility requirement under Article lO(d) of the Court's Protocol, the general position as confirmed by the Court' s precedents is that Applicants must demonstrate that they are, prima facie, victims of human rights violations attributable to the Respondent. In other words, they have been injured by the conduct of the Respondent (be it an act, omission, practice, or law) and therefore have a personal interest o stake in the matter. (See Amnesty International Togo and Others v The Togolese Republic [ECW/CCJ/JUD/09/20], paras 31-33). 3 7. That said, the Court has recognised three broad exceptions to the above general rule on standing to allow persons who are not direct victims of human rights violations to bring cases before the Court. These are: (i) actions brought by indirect victims, that is, persons closely related to the direct victim and who potentially suffer indirect consequences of the human rights violation (see Kehinde Enagameh v The Gambia [ECW/CCJ/JUD/34/23], para 30; and Attipoe Kuaku v Republic of Sierra Leone [ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/23], paras 42-45); (ii) a representative action brought by an individual or NGO on behalf of an individual victim or a group with the authorisation of such individual or group (see Bakary Sarre and 28 Others v Mali [2011] CCJELR 57, para 37); and (iii) public interest actions (actio popularis) brought by NGOs or public-spirited individuals (see Patrick Eholor v Federal Republic of Nigeria [ECW/CC/JUD/51/23], paras 51-52 and Isaac Mensah v Republic of Ghana [ECW/CCJ/JUD/30/24], paras 76-77). 38. In Incorporated Trustees of Prince & Princess Charles Ojfokaja Foundation v Federal Republic of Nigeria [ECW/CCJ/JUD/14/25], para 39, the Court held that in a public interest action, "an Applicant need not obtain any mandat or authorization, as doing so would be impractical or impossible. What matters is that: (i) the claim is brought to protect or enforce a collective or public right, or, in some cases, an individual right whose alleged breach has harmed the public or a large and indeterminate section of the public; and (ii) the reliefs sought are intended for the benefit of the public as a whole." 39. In this case, there are three Applicants. The First and Second Applicants, who are NGOs, are suing in the public interest, while the Third Applicant, an individual, is suing in her own right as an alleged victim of FGM. Regarding the Third Applicant, the Court notes that she has alleged sufficient facts demonstrating, prima facie, that she was subjected to FGM in violation of her rights. The Court therefore holds that she has standing. 40. Regarding the First and Second Applicants, the Court notes, from the pleadings of both sides to the case, that FGM is a matter that affects the rights and wellbeing of a significant percentage of the female population of Sierra Leone. It is, therefore, a matter in respect of which a public interest action may be brought. Secondly, apart from the reliefs specific to the Third Applicant who herself is a party to the case, all the other reliefs sought are objectively of a nature intended for the benefit of the general public, particularly the female population of the Respondent state. Accordingly, the Court holds that the First and Second Applicants have standing as public interest litigants. 41. Also, the Court notes that the case has not been presented anonymously, nor is there ev· ence that the matter is pending before another international court, contrary to the admissibility requirements of Article 10( d) of the Protocol of the Court. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Application is admissible. IX. MERITS 42. Having regard to the pleadings in the Application including the reliefs sought, the Court is invited to make four main determinations of human rights violations, namely: i) Alleged violation of the Respondent's obligation to take legislative measures to eradicate female genital mutilation (FGM) ii) Alleged violation of the Third Applicant's right to a remedy and access to justice. iii) Alleged violation of the Third Applicant, Kadijatu Balaima Allieu's right to security of the person. iv) Alleged violation of the Third Applicant's rights to dignity and freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 43. The Court will examine each of these issues beginning with the alleged failure of the Respondent to take legislative measures to eradicate FGM. i) Alleged violation of the Respondent's obligation to take legislative measures to eradicate female genital mutilation 44. Applicants say that pursuant to Articles 2(1 )(b ), 4 and 5 of the Maputo ( a) Submissions of the Applicants Protocol as well as Articles 1 and 21 of the African Charter on the Rights of the Child ("African Children's Charter"), the Respondent has an obligation to adopt legislative measures to prohibit and impose sanctions for FGM and other harmful cultural practices, or gender based violence against women and girls. Despite its obligations under these human rights instruments, the Respondent has not enacted any law expressly and specifically prohibiting FGM. Applicants contend that this failure of the Respondent is responsible for the continued practice of FGM in Sierra Leone to which many Sierra Leonean women and girls, including the Third Applicant, have been subjected in violation of their fundamental human rights. (b)Submissions of the Respondent 45. On this issue, the Respondent submits that it has adopted necessary legislative and policy measures to curb all forms of discrimination against women and to modify harmful cultural practices that affect women. Respondent states that in addition to Section 2 7 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone which prohibits all forms of discrimination, it has also enacted the Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Act 2023. According to the Respondent, the Gender Equality and Women's Ernp erment Act 2023 which reserves 30% 19 arJ/>- of all public and private jobs for women has increased the number of women in decision making in both the public and private sectors. Respondent also states that it has, in 2022, submitted a Draft Child Rights Bill to Parliament which contains provisions that will criminalise FGM for young girls under the age of 18 years. (c) Analysis of the Court 46. The Court begins by noting that under Article 5 of the Maputo Protocol, all state parties including the Respondent undertake to "prohibit and condemn all forms of harmful practices which negatively affect the human rights of women, and which are contrary to recognised international standards." That provision of the Protocol further states that "States Parties shall take all necessary legislative and other measures to eliminate such practices, including: (b) Prohibition, through legislative measures backed by sanctions, of all forms of female genital mutilation, scarification, medicalization and para medicalisation of female genital mutilation and all other practices in order to eradicate them." 4 7. Similarly, Article 21 ( 1) of the African Children's Charter requires state parties including the Respondent to "take all appropriate measures to eliminate harmful social and cultural practices affecting the welfare, dignity, normal growth and development of the child and in particular: (a) those customs and practices prejudicial to the health or life of the child." 48. The Court considers that by the combined effect of Article 5 of the Maputo Protocol and Article 21 ( 1 )(a) of the African Children's Charter, FGM is a harmful social or cultural practice that violates the rights of women and girls. According to the World Health Organisation, FGM "comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." (WHO, Fact Sheets: Female Genital Mutilation, 31 January 2023; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation). Sierra Leone is among the countries with the highest prevalence of FGM. The information, statistics, and victims' statements submitted by the Applicants, which have not been refuted, confirm this. 49. It follows, that the Respondent has an obligation under the aforementioned provisions of the Maputo Protocol and the African Children's Charter to take appropriate legislative measures to prohibit FGM, and impose sanctions on its perpetrators. The Respondent does not dispute that it has this obligation. Rather, it says that it has discharged it by enacting the Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Act 2022 and by proposing a Child Rights Bill which will criminalize FGM when enacted. 50. Regarding the Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment Act 2022, the Court observes that it was passed, among others, to "address gender imbalances by making provision for increased appointment of women to decision-making positions and structures so as to achieve at least 30% representation, to provid for the promotion of gender equality in employment and training, [ and] to provide for the implementation of gender mainstreaming and budgeting." As is evident from the provisions of the Act and the submissions of the Respondent, the Act has no provision that criminalizes FGM and imposes sanctions on perpetrators of the practice. 51. The draft Child Rights Bill proposed by the Respondent with provisions to criminalize FGM is laudable. However, it remains a legislative proposal, rather than a duly enacted statute with binding legal force. It follows that, at present, the Respondent has not fulfilled its obligation to adopt legislative measures to prohibit FGM and punish its perpetrators as required of it under Article 5 of the Maputo Protocol and Article 2l(l)(a) of the African Children's Charter. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Respondent has violated Article 5 of the Maputo Protocol and Article 21 ( 1) of the African Children's Charter by failing to adopt legislation to criminalize FGM and punish its perpetrators. ii) Alleged violation of the Third Applicant, Kadijatu Balaima Allieu's right to a remedy and access to justice (a) Submission of Applicants 52. Applicants submit that by Article 1 of the African Charter, the Respondent has an obligation to take necessary measures to give effect to the rights guaranteed in the Charter. This entails the obligation of the Respondent to provide edress for human rights violations. ~ According to Applicants, such measures of redress for human rights violations include effective investigations to identify perpetrators for prosecution and punishment. 53 . Applicants state that this obligation to provide redress for human rights violations is reflected in Article 2(3) of the ICCPR as well as Article 25 of the Maputo Protocol. Despite these obligations, the Respondent has failed to conduct an effective investigation into the FGM carried out on the Third Applicant although it has had sufficient notice of the violation. (b) Submissions of the Respondent 54. On this issue, Respondent states that the Sierra Leone Police played a key role in rescuing the Third Applicant from the women who subjected her to FGM and in helping her obtain medical attention. They also conducted an investigation into the matter. Upon the Third Applicant's return to Sierra Leone from refuge in Liberia, she initiated a Private Criminal Summons in the Magistrate Court in Kenema and there is a pending application through an Originating Summons for the matter to be transferred to Freetown. For these reasons, Respondent submits that it has not violated the Third Applicant's right to access justice or obtain a remedy. (c)Analysis of the Court 5 5. The Court recalls that the obligation of a State to take measures to fulfil or protect human right as reflected in Article 1 of the African Charter, Article 2(3) of the ICCPR, and Article 25 of the Maputo Protocol, entails a duty to provide effective remedies for human rights violations when they occur. 56. Therefore, in Gan Allah Fulani Development Foundation v Federal Republic of Nigeria (ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/23) this Court observed as follows: 69. The Court notes that the general obligation of states to fulfil human rights includes the duty to provide effective measures to redress human right violations when they occur. In General Comment No. 31 ( on the ICCPR), the Human Rights Committee details the specific obligations entailed in the duty to provide redress or effective remedies for human rights violations which are (i) the duty to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly, and effectively through independent and impartial bodies; and (ii) the duty to make reparations to individuals whose rights have been violated in appropriate form such as compensation, rehabilitation and guarantees of non-repetition. (See General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on State Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/ Add. I 3, paras 15-17). 70. Under the African Charter, and the other relevant human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent, the obligation to investigate entails the conduct of prompt and impartial inquiries into the alleged violations with the view to identifying and holding perpetrators accountable, whether they are state officials or private persons. Failure of a state to conduct effective investigation into violations of human rights will en age the duty of the state to provide effective redress. 57. The Court further emphasized "that the duty to investigate alleged violations of human rights must be promptly and impartially undertaken and be verifiable through documented findings and actions taken. Satisfactory evidence of such an investigation, and the actions taken pursuant to its findings, must be furnished to the Court." (Registered Trustees of Gan Allah Fulani Development Association of Nigeria v Federal Republic of Nigeria, para 72.) 58. In this case, it is common ground between the parties that the Third Applicant was forcibly subjected to FGM by some women's group in her community and detained for a number of days. Both sides also agree that she was eventually rescued and was able to get medical assistance with the help of officers of the Respondent's police service. However, the Third Applicant had to leave the country and seek refuge in neighbouring Liberia, a fact which the Respondent acknowledges. Applicants say that the Third Applicant sought refuge in Liberia because women of the Bondo Society who subjected her to FGM stormed the hospital where she was on admission and threatened to attack it if she was not released to them. The Court notes that the Respondent does not controvert this assertion. The Court also observes that the Respondent has not been able to refute the Applicants' assertion that none of the perpetrators of the violations against the Third Applicant has been held accountable. Respondent has not presented any evidence showing that any of the persons who subjected the Third Applicant to FGM and detained her for days, or those who threatened her while she was at the hospital have been investigated, arrested, or prosecuted. 59.ln fact, as the Respondent admits, it was the victim herself who, after returning from refuge in Liberia, had to issue a private criminal summons in a Magistrate Court to commence criminal proceedings against the perpetrators. The Court acknowledges that a victim of a human rights violation may play a role in the investigation or prosecution of perpetrators, for example, by reporting the matter to the relevant authorities or providing any available evidence to support the prosecution. However, the involvement of victims in the legal or judicial process cannot supplant the primary duty of the state and its law enforcement agencies to administer criminal justice, even where the law allows for private prosecution. It is why the African Commission noted in Article 19 v Eritrea [2007] AHLR 73, para 72, as follows: [W]henever there is a crime that can be investigated and prosecuted by the state on its own initiative, the state has the obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate conclusion. In such cases, one cannot demand that the complainants, or the victims or their family members assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies when it is up to the state to investigate the facts and bring the accused persons to court in accordance with both domestic and international fair trial standards. 60. For the above reasons, the Court concludes that the Respondent has not fulfilled its obligation to provide effective redress to the Third Applicant by conducting prompt, impartial, and verifiable investigations to identify and hold the individuals who carried out the FGM on the Third Applicant accountable. iii) Alleged violation of the Third Applicant's right to security of person (a) Submissions of the Applicants 61. Applicants state that the Third Applicant, Kadijatu Bailama Allieu, was forcibly subjected to FGM by some women in her community and detained by the perpetrators until she was rescued and taken to a hospital for medical attention. According to Applicants, this violated the Third Applicant's right to security of person contrary to Article 6 of the African Charter, Article 9 of the ICCPR, and Article 4(1) of the Maputo Protocol. 62. Applicants contend that although the violation was perpetrated by private individuals, their conduct is attributable to the Respondent. This is because by failing to prohibit FGM under its laws, the Respondent consequently failed to protect the Third Applicant against the FGM that was inflicted on her. Also, even after the incident, the Respondent has failed to hold the perpetrators accountable. Applicants, therefore, conclude that the Respondent is responsible for the violation of the Third Applicant's right to security of person. (b) Submissions of the Respondent 63 . On this issue, the Respondent submits that the Third Applicant's right to security of person has not been violated. According to the Respondent, its security agents tried at all material times to protect the Third Applicant's liberty and security of person. That it was the security agents of the Respondent wh : o k~p l i c an t free when she ~ was detained by the perpetrators of the FGM, ensured that she got medical attention, and investigated the matter. For these reasons, Respondent contends that the Applicants have failed to substantiate their claim that it is responsible for any violation of the Third Applicant's right to security of person. (c) Analysis of the Court 64. Article 6 of the African Charter provides that "[e]very individual shall have the right to liberty and to the security of his person". Similarly, Article 9(1) of the ICCPR states that"[ e ]very one has the right to liberty and security of person". Under Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol, a woman's right to security of person is affirmed with an obligation imposed on state parties to prohibit and punish all forms of violence against women. 65. In General Comment No. 35 on Article 9 of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee has stated that ' [ s ]ecurity of person concerns freedom from injury to the body and the mind, or bodily and mental integrity' and has as its aim protection of the individual 'against intentional infliction of bodily or mental injury, regardless of whether the victim is detained or non-detained'. (General Comment No 35, paras 3 & 9). 66.ln Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Another v Sudan (2009) AHRLR 153 (para 175) the African Commission explained that an individual's right to security of person has a public element which requires the state to protect " e physical integrity of its citizens from abuse by official authorities". However, it also has a private element which looks to how "the state protects the physical integrity of its citizens from abuse by other citizens (third parties or non-state actors)." 67. As defined by the WHO, FGM involves the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. The immediate effects of FGM include severe pain, excessive bleeding (haemorrhage), genital tissue swelling, injury to surrounding genital tissue, while long-term complications include urinary tract infections, pain or decreased satisfaction during intercourse, increased risk of child birth complications, and psychological problems such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Given the nature and effects of FGM on the physical and mental integrity of women and girls, there is no doubt that it is a serious violation of the right to security of person and is one of the worst forms of violence against women. 68. In this case, the Court notes that the Third Applicant's claim that she suffered FGM at the hands of a group of women in her community is supported by a doctor's report which was attached to the Application. It is also worth noting, that the Respondent does not dispute that the Applicant is a victim of FGM. In the circumstances, the question the Court must decide is whether the actions of the private individuals who subjected the Third Applicant to FGM are attributable to the Respondent, in which case the Respondent would be liable for the violation of the Third Applicant' s right to security of person. ~ 69. On this issue, the Court notes that generally, a state is responsible for the wrongful acts committed by its organs or agents acting in official capacity. (See Articles on State Responsibility 2001, Article 4 and Registered Trustees of Gan Allah Fulani Development Association v Federal Republic of Nigeria [ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/23], para 59). 70. However, as an exception to the above stated rule, it is recognized that "[ a ]n illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly imputable to a State (for example, because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required." ( Velasquez Rodriguez v Honduras (Merits) Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 29 July 1988, para 172.) 71. In this case, there is no dispute that the violation of the Third Applicant's right to security of person was committed by private individuals. However, the Respondent has a duty to protect "the physical integrity of its citizens from abuse by other citizens (third parties or non-state actors)." Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Another v Sudan (2009) AHRLR 153 (para 175). In the context of FGM, the Respondent' s obligation to protect its citizens from harm to their bodily integrity includes the duty to enact a legislation to criminalize the practice, as required under Article 5 of the Maputo Protocol. And in cases where a woman or girl is unfortunately subjected to FGM, the Respon ent' s obligation to protect her right to security of person entails a duty to identify, investigate, and prosecute the perpetrators. (See Gan Allah Fulani Development Foundation v Federal Republic of Nigeria [ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/23], paras 69-70). 72. However, as the Court has already found in relation to the first issue, the Respondent has failed to adopt a legislation to criminalize FGM and impose sanctions on its perpetrators. This failure, in itself, may be deemed as official acquiescence or complicity in the continued practice of FGM and its resulting human rights violations, including the violation of the Third Applicant's right to security of person in this instance. In any event, once the Respondent became aware of the FGM carried out on the Third Applicant and the resulting violation of her right to security of person, it was under a duty to take appropriate measures to identify, investigate, and prosecute the perpetrators. Although the Respondent does not have a specific law criminalizing FGM, the perpetrators could have been prosecuted under existing laws that criminalize unlawful bodily harm or assault. 73. Yet, as shown by the Court's findings on the Third Applicant's right to an effective remedy and access to justice, the Respondent has not presented any evidence that any of the individuals who subjected the Third Applicant to FGM and detained her for several days, or those who threatened her while she was at the hospital, have been investigated, arrested, or prosecuted by its law enforcement authorities. Therefore, although the Respondent's security agents initially assisted in rescuing the Third Applicant from the perpetrators, the Court finds that the totality of the Respondent's conduct before and after the incident falls short of its obligation to protect the Third Applicant from violations of her right to security of person arising from FGM carried out by private actors. For these reasons, the Court holds that the Respondent is liable for the violation of the Third Applicant' s right to security of person, in breach of Article 6 of the African Charter, Article 9(1) of the IC CPR, and Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol. iv) Alleged violation of the Third Applicant's rights to dignity and freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ( a) Submissions of the Applicants 74. Applicants submit that the FGM canied out on the Third Applicant constitutes torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 5 of the African Charter, Article 3 (1) of the Maputo Protocol and Article 7 of the ICCPR. 75. Applicants contend that although the act was not carried out by officers or agents of the Respondent, it is nevertheless liable because it has failed to cany out an effective investigation to identify, prosecute and punish the perpetrators. (b) Submissions of the Respondent 76. Relying on the definition of torture provided for in Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture, the Respondent denies the claim of torture made by the Applicants. Res ndent submits that no severe physical or 32 ~ ~ mental pam or suffering was intentionally inflicted on the Third Applicant for purposes of obtaining a confession from her or punishing her for any act by its public officials. Also, there is no medical evidence submitted by the Applicant in support of this claim. Therefore, the Court should dismiss the claim as unfounded. (c) Analysis of the Court 77. The Court begins by noting that while Article 5 of the African Charter, Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibit torture, they do not provide definitions of the term. Nevertheless, given that the Convention Against Torture, which the Respondent has ratified, provides a definition of torture, the Court considers it appropriate to proceed on the basis of that definition. 78. Relying on the definition of torture in Article 1 of the Torture Convention, this Court held in Mohamed Morlu v Sierra Leone [ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/24], para 49, as follows: [T]orture occurs when there is: a) intentional ill-treatment of a person causing severe physical or mental pain or suffering; b) the purpose of the ill-treatment is to obtain a confession from the victim or a third person, to punish, intimidate, or coerce the victim or a third person, or to advance any discriminatory purpose; and it is carried out by a public official or a person acting in an official capacity or with their encouragement, consent, or acquiescence. c) 79 . As the Court has already discussed, and in line with the WHO guidance on the subject, FGM caus s severe pain, excessive bleeding (haemorrhage), swelling of genital tissue, injury to surrounding genital areas, and long-term complications including depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There is no doubt, therefore, that the FGM intentionally inflicted on the Third Applicant meets the threshold of severe physical or mental pain or suffering required to constitute torture. 80. Regarding the purposive element of torture, the Court considers that, based on the totality of the facts and evidence presented, there is no substantial basis to conclude that the FGM was carried out on the Third Applicant to obtain information or a confession from her or a third person, to punish her for an act she or a third person had committed or was suspected of having committed, to intimidate or coerce her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination. 81. Having concluded that the element of purpose is not satisfied on the facts of this case, the Court does not deem it necessary to address the issue of whether the FGM carried out on the Third Applicant by private individuals was done at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity within the meaning of Article 1 of the Torture Convention. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Respondent has not violated the Third Applicant's right to be free from torture within the meaning of Article 5 of the African Charter, Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 7 of the ICCPR. ***** 82. The Court now turns to the alternative claim of the Applicants that the FGM carried out on the Third Applicant constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment for which the Respondent is liable. 83. Regarding what amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, this Court has had occasion to explain that a "treatment is cruel if is meted out in disregard for the fragility of the human person and in a manner that shocks the conscience, it is inhuman if it is intentionally inflicted to cause great physical or mental pain to the victim, and it is degrading if it is inflicted to humiliate or debase the victim." (Moses Abiodun v Federal Republic of Nigeria [ECW/CCJ/JUD/31/25], para 56). Similarly, the Court noted in Chukwuemeka Edeh v Nigeria [ECW/CCJ/JUD/36/24] (para 38) that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, "are acts that cause severe physical or mental pain or suffering and are intended, among others, to humiliate or debase the individual, or have such effect on the individual." 84. Given the immediate severe physical pain or suffering associated with FGM, its long-term health complications including psychological problems, and the stigma associated with it, the Court considers that FGM constitutes an inhuman or degrading treatment. 85. The Court observes that Article 5 of the African Charter, Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 7 of the ICCPR do not stipulate any requirement relating to the official status of the perpetrator of an inhuman or degrading treatment. Thus, for instance, the Human Rights Committee has stated in General Comment No. 20 on Article 7 of the ICCPR (para 2) as follows : It is the duty of the State party to afford everyone protection through legislative and other measures as may be necessary against the acts prohibited by article 7, whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity or in a private capacity. 86. However, by Article 16. of the Torture Convention, an inhuman or degrading treatment must be carried out by a public official or a person acting in an official capacity, or with their instigation, consent, or acquiescence. Given that FGM is generally carried out by private individuals, and that the practice thrives under official inaction, the Court considers that a State's failure to enact legislation criminalizing the practice, and/or its failure to investigate, identify, and prosecute perpetrators, may amount to official acquiescence to acts of FGM for the purposes of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16 of the Torture Convention. 87. The Court notes that this reasoning appears to underlie a number of cases where the Committee Against Torture has held that the subjection of a woman to FGM violates a State Party's obligations under the Torture Convention. See D. B. v The Netherlands [CAT/C/824/2017], para 8.9, where the Committee noted "that female genital mutilation causes permanent physical harm and severe psychological pain to the victims, which may last for the rest of their lives", and therefore held that "the practice of subjecting a woman to female genital mutilation is contrary to the obligations ens rined in the Convention." See also F. B. v. Netherlands [CAT/C/56/D/613/2014], para 8.7 and R. O. v. Sweden [CAT/C/59/D/644/2014], para 8.7. 88. In this case, it is not disputed that the Third Applicant was subjected to FGM by a group of women acting in their private capacity. However, as the Court has already found, the Respondent has failed to enact legislation prohibiting FGM, despite the widespread nature of the practice in Sierra Leone and its obligations under Article 5 of the Maputo Protocol. The Court also notes that, despite having notice of the FGM inflicted on the Third Applicant, the Respondent's law enforcement agencies have not carried out an effective investigation leading to the arrest, prosecution, and punishment of the perpetrators. Accordingly, even under the stricter standard of Article 16 of the Torture Convention which requires, inter alia, official acquiescence for an act to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment, the Court finds that the Respondent is complicit in the FGM to which the Third Applicant was subjected. 89. For these reasons, the Court concludes that the subjection of the Third Applicant to FGM and the failure of the Respondent to hold the perpetrators accountable constitute inhuman or degrading treatment and violate the Respondent's obligations under Article 5 of the African Charter, Article 3(1) of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 7 of the ICCPR. X. REPARATIONS 90. Given the Court' s conclusion that the Respondent has failed to take legislative measures to prohibit female genital mutilation contrary to its obligations under the Maputo Protocol and has violated the Third Applicant's rights to effective remedy, security of person, and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, the Court must consider the appropriate reparations the Respondent must make. 91. Reparations may take the form of restitution, compensation, satisfaction, or a combination of these. In this case, the Third Applicant requested, by way of compensation, general damages of 200,000 dollars in addition to various declarations and orders aimed at ensuring that the Respondent takes legislative and other measures to address FGM and investigate the violations committed against the Third Applicant. 92. The Court notes that in the award of general damages, it is not possible to place a monetary value on the suffering, distress, embarrassment, and other psychological harms a victim of a human rights violation would have suffered. Thus, while the Court may take account of factors such as the gravity or egregiousness of the violation and the conduct of the State in the aftermath of the violation, ultimately, it is up to the Court to exercise its discretion in equity to determine what amounts to a fair compensation to be paid. 93 . In this case, given the immediate physical pain and suffering from the FGM to which the Third Applicant was subjected, the long-term health complications it may have on her including psychologically, and the unacceptable lack of action by responsible authorities of the Respondent to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators, the Court considers that the sum of thirty thousand (30,000) US dollars, payable in the equivalent of Leones, is a just and fair compensation for the violations of the rights of the Third Applicant. 94. The Court grants other reliefs sought by the Applicants only to the extent indicated in the operative clause of this judgment. XI. COSTS 95 . Pursuant to Article 66(11) of the Rules of the Court, the Court decides that each party shall bear their own costs. XII. OPERATIVE CLAUSE 96. For the foregoing reasons, the Court sitting in public and after hearing the parties: On jurisdiction 1. Declares that it has jurisdiction over the Application On admissibility 11. Finds that the Application is admissible. On the Merits 111. Declares that the Respondent has violated its obligation to take legislative and other measures to prohibit female genital mutilation in Sierra Leone pursuant to Articles 2(1 )(b ), 4 and 5 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 21 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. 1v. Declares that the Respondent's failure to investigate, find and prosecute the perpetrators of the female genital mutilation inflicted on the Third Applicant has violated the rights of the Third Applicant to an effective remedy and access to justice contrary to Articles 1 and 7(1)(a) of the African Charter, Article 25 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 2(3) of the ICCPR. v. Declares that the subjection of the Third Applicant to female genital mutilation violates her right to security of person contrary to the Respondent's obligations under Article 6 of the African Charter, Article 4 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 9(1) of the ICCPR. v1. Declares that the subjection of the Third Applicant to female genital mutilation constitutes an inhuman or degrading treatment and violates the Respondent's obligations under Article 5 of the African Charter, Articles 3 and 4 of the Maputo Protocol, and Article 7 of the ICCPR. On Reparations v11. Orders the Respondent to take immediate legislative measures to prohibit and sanction female genital mutilation in Sierra Leone. v111. Orders the Respondent to adopt the necessary administrative, educational or socioeconomic policies or measures to ensure the eradication of female genital mutilation in Sierra Leone. 1x. Orders the Respondent to pay the equivalent of 30,000 US dollars in Leones to the Third Applicant as compensation for the violations of her human rights established in this judgment. x. Orders the Respondent to promptly investigate, identify, and prosecute the perpetrators or any persons responsible for the female genital mutilation inflicted on the Third Applicant. On costs xi. Decides that each Party shall bear their own costs. Done at Abuja this 8th day of July 2025 in English and translated into French and Portuguese. Hon. Justice Ricardo C. M. GON<;AL VES Presiding --- Hon. Justice Gberi-Be OUATTARA Member Hon. Justice Edward Amoako ASANTE Judge Rapporteur ASSISTED BY: Dr. Yaouza OURO-SAMA (Chief Registrar) 42