La Ligue Togolaise Des Droits De L'Homme and Others v State of Togo (ECW/CCJ/APP/06/22; ECW/CCJ/JUD/39/25) [2025] ECOWASCJ 36 (7 July 2025)

COMMUNITY COURT OF JUSTICE, ECOWAS COUR DE JUSTICE DE LA COMMUNAUTE, CEDEAO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTICA DA COMMUNIDADE, CEDEAO IN THE COURT OF WSTICE OF THE ECONO11IC COMMUNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES (ECOWAS) HOLDEN AT ABUJA, NIGERIA In the Case of LA LJGUE TOGO LA/SE DES DROITS DEL 'HOMME AND SEVEN (07) OTHERS AGAINST THE STATE OF TOGO Application N° : ECW/ CCJIAPP/06/22 Judgment N°. ECWICCJIJUD/39/25 JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN ABUJA On 7th July, 2025 CASE N°: ECW/CCJ/APP/06/22 JUDGMENT N° ECW/CCJ/JUD/39/25 LA LIGUE TOGOLAISE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME AND SEVEN (07) OTHERS V. APPLICANTS STATE OF TOGO DEFENDANT Plot 1164 Joseph Gomwalk Street, Gudu District, Abuja Nigeria. www.courtecowas.org BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hon. Judge Ricardo Claudio GON<;ALVES Hon. Judge Sengu Mohamed KOROMA Presiding Member Hon. Judge Gberi-be OUATTARA Judge Rapporteur/Member ASSISTED BY: Dr. Yaouza OURO-SAMA Chief Registrar I. PARTIES' REPRESENTATION The Applicants are represented by the following group of Lawyers: 1. Maitre Darius Totekpo Mawu Kokou ATSOO, lawyer at the Lome Bar in Togo, with offices located in Lome, Amadahoue, Immeuble ELIZA HOME, 2nd floor, 07 BP: 7722, Lome-Togo, Telephone: +228 22 55 85 86/ 98 81 66 66, Skype ID: darius.atso, email: darius.atso@atsolawyerfirm.com (Lead Counsel); 2. Maitre Alexis IHOU, Doctor of Law, lawyer at the Lille Bar, SELARL ALEXIS IHOU AVOCATS, 11, Grande Place, 59100 ROUBIX, telephone: +33 7 88 43 05 10, email: ihouavocats@gmail.com; 3. Assane Dioma NDIA YE, lawyer at the Senegal Bar, 10, Rue SABA Immeuble, Sam Seek Fann bock, Dakar, telephone: +221 33 84 221 57/ +221 77 638 79 13, email: djiagaconsultating@yahoo.fr; f /f,' ~ ~ 4. Maitre Jean PAILLOT, lawyer at the Strasbourg Bar (France), 11 rue Finkmatt, 67000 Strasbourg, telephone: +33 3 88 24 47 66, email: jean.paillot@neuf.fr; 5. Maitre Raphael KP ANDE ADZARE, lawyer at the Lome Bar in Togo, 'JURA', law firm, TOTSI district, Total-Totsi canefour limousine, von en face de la microfinance millenium, angle rue Abolo, 241, TOT, 04 BP : 877, Lome-Togo, telephone: 21 87 27 47, courriel: etudecabinetavocatsjuniro@gmail.com;; 6. Maitre Elom Koffi KP ADE, lawyer at the Lome Bar in Togo, Lome-Hedzanawoe Boulevard du Haho en face cote ouest de la polyclinique Saint-Joseph, 06 BP : 61201-BE, telephone: (+223) 22 61 27 70/ Cellulaire: (+228 90 11 72 81, courriel : belomkpade@gmail.com, NIF: 1001304521 The Defendant is represented by The Minister of Justice and Inter-Institutional Relations, residing at his offices located at 03, rue de L'OCAM, BP 121, Lome, Togo, Tel: +228 22 21 26 53. II. JUDGMENT OF COURT This judgment was delivered by the Court in a virtual public hearing in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Practice Directions on Electronic Case Management and Virtual Hearings, 2020. III. DESIGNATION OF THE PARTIES I. The Applicants are Ligue Togolaise des Droits de l'Homme (L TDH) [Togolese Human 1. Rights League (LTDH)], with registration number 1218/MATD-SG DAPOC-DOCA dated 7 October 2005, represented by its Chairman, Maitre Celestin G. Kokouvi AG BOGAN; Association des Victimes de la Torture au Togo (ASVITTO) 2. [Association of Victims of Torture in Togo (ASVITTO)], with registration number 0604/06-06-2012, represented by its Chairman, Mr. ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E; Synergie des Eleves et Etudiants du Togo (SEETJ, with registration 3. number I 106/MATDCL-SG-DLPAP-DOCA of 8 December 2017, email: seet.tg20 l 7@gmail.com, represented by its Chairman, Mr AMENOUVEVE Basile; 4. Mouvement pour la Justice Sociale (MJS) with registration number 440/MATCL/06/2018, mjs607506@gmail.com, issawousaki@yahoo.fr, represented by its Chairman, Mr SATCHIBOU Issaou; emails: 5. Mouvement Conscience Mandela (MCM), with registration number 244/MATCL/29/03/2018, email: BP: mouvementconsciencemandela@gmail.com, represented by the Secretary General of Joseph Nadikpa K. AKPOSSOGNA; the Board of Directors, Maitre Lome-TOGO, 877, 6. AMENUVEVE Basile, student of Togolese nationality; 7. ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E, Togolese citizen; KAMINGA Piabala, student of Togolese nationality (hereinafter 8. referred to as 'the applicants'); 2. The respondent is the State of Togo, a Member State of the Community, signatory to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other international human rights protection instruments(hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent'). IV. INTRODUCTION 3. The purpose of these proceedings is to examine the Applicants' request that the Court find that the Respondent has violated their right to physical and mental integrity, their right to safety and security, their right to freedom of movement, and their right to freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration, as provided for in Articles 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), Articles 2, 13 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and Articles 9 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They request that the Court order the defendant to compensate them for the prejudices they have suffered. 4. The Defendant did not file its defence. V. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 5. On 18 January 2022, the Applicants filed a petition with the Court against the Defendant for violation of their fundamental rights. This application was notified on the defendant on 19 January 2022; 6. On 6 June 2023, the Court Registry sent to the Judge-Rapporteur a certificate of non-filing noting the absence of any submissions from the Defendant at the expiry of the time-limit granted to it to file a defence; 7. On 22 January 2024, the Applicants' Counsel filed a request for information and instructions with the Court Registry; 8. On 25 January 2024, they submitted further documents containing supplementary information to the Court Registry. 9. On 8 April 2024, the Applicants filed an Application for Default Judgment with the Court, which was served on the Respondent on the same day. 10. On 10 July 2024, a hearing was held at the Court, at which only the Applicants were represented. The Court noted the absence of any submissions from the the hearing. The Applicants made Respondent and its non-appearance at observations in which they reiterated their Application for a default judgment; 11. The case was then adjourned for deliberation. VI. ARGUMENTS BY THE APPLICANTS a) Summary of facts 12. By Application initiating proceedings received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2023 , the Applicants state that on 1 August 2020, the Monseigneur Kpodzro Movement, a political movement composed of political parties and civil society organisations supporting the candidacy of Gabriel Mensah Kodjo AGBEYOME in the presidential election in Togo on 22 February 2020, called for a demonstration to contest the results of that election and demand the restoration of the true results of the ballot box; 13. They claim that, curiously, on the day of the demonstration, people, mostly young men, carrying knives and machetes in most cases, were positioned at various street comers in the city of Lome, the capital of Togo, to prevent the demonstration, even though no official administrative decision by the competent authorities had banned it; 14. They explain that in a post on his Facebook page on 2 August 2020, the Member of the National Assembly, the Honourable Gerry KOMANDEGA TAAMA, Chairman of the political party called Nouvel Engagement Togolais (NET), 'public order must be the 'denounced these practices' in the following terms: preserve of the defence forces ' and, consequently, " militias are an unacceptable threat to our coexistence in a Republic reconciled with its people, 'and 'there should be no complacency, and the law must be applied with the same energy in all cases, both for prohibited demonstrations and for gatherings on public roads with knives, especially since these often take place in the vicinity of deployed defence forces. "; 15. They emphasise that this practice is not new and that it had already occurred in 2005 (with a heavy toll of between 500. and 1,000 deaths among the civilian population, according to the United Nations Report), in 2012 and most recently in 2017 during demonstrations by the Togolese opposition and civil society with a view to demanding the implementation of constitutional, institutional and electoral reforms. This practice resulted in physical harm to demonstrators (serious injuries, people maimed and disabled for life) and loss of life. 16. The applicants note that there has been an outcry over the resurgence of militias in the pay of the authorities. Several national and international institutions have expressed their concerns about the protection of the civilian population, their rights and freedoms. On 24 October 2017, the office of the spokesperson for the US Department of State issued a statement on the deployment of militias, which stated specifica~ly that "The United States is deeply concerned about the escalation of violence and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly in Togo related to protests over proposed constitutional reforms. We are particularly concerned about reports of excessive use of force by security forces and note that government sponsored militias are using force and the threat of force to disrupt demonstrations and intimidate civilians." On 25 October 2017, the spokesperson for the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that 'France continues to monitor developments in Togo closely. We are concerned by reports of men in plain clothes alongside the security forces, who may be militias' ; ~ ~ 17. The Applicants further state that, in an open letter dated 26 October 2017, the Ligue Togolaise des Droits de /'Homme [Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH)] wrote to the Minister of Justice, Pius AGBETOMEY, and the Minister of Security and Civil Protection, Yark DAMEHAME, to draw their attention to their culpable inaction and silence in the face of the armed militias that sowed terror in the city of Lome on 18 and 19 September 201 7, following demonstrations organised by the opposition coalition. In this correspondence, the organisation for the promotion, defence and protection of human rights stated as follows: "Our observers, dispatched on the field for the usual monitoring of human rights during public demonstrations, noted the presence, on certain streets of the city of Lome, of hooded individuals armed with knives (machetes, hatchets, studded clubs, ropes in their hands), who were pursuing and physically assaulting and mistreating passers-by.' In response to this letter, the Minister of Security and Civil Protection acknowledged the existence of these militias but attempted to evade the issue by stating that they were 'self-defence groups' and 'young people who had organised themselves into groups to defend their neighbourhoods." 18. They point out that the president of the parliamentary group of the ruling Union for the Republic (UNIR) party, Christophe TCHAO, has stated that he is not familiar with the militias, but rather with 'young people' from the UNIR presidential party, who 'are forced to act' in the face of clashes: 'These are our young people. They have formed vigilante groups to defend their neighbourhoods.' 19. They assert that in an interview with Jeune Afrique Magazine at the end of 2018, the Head of State Faure GNASSINGBE himself acknowledged the 'birth of these self-defence groups'; 20. The Applicants nevertheless recall the recognised and accepted principle that security, which falls within the remit of the exercise of governing power, remains a sovereign power of a State and a fundamental attribute of sovereignty, one of the corollaries of which is the responsibility to protect; 21. The Applicants further argue that this practice of deploying militias to prevent demonstrations by civil society organisations, i.e. political parties and political party tfy ~ groups, as well as civil society organisations, has been gaining momentum and becoming more widespread in recent years. It is becoming recurrent and worrying, and at the same time constitutes a real scourge against respect for human rights and public freedoms, and the worst is to be feared if nothing is done to eradicate it; 22. They report that in July 2013, during the campaign for the legislative elections, Atcholi KAO, one of the applicants, was attacked, along with a delegation from the 'Collectif Sauvons le Togo' (CST) that accompanied the candidate, who was the lead candidate for the said Collective in the canton of Bodje, in the south-east of the prefecture of Kpele; 23. They explain that upon arriving at the scene, the CST delegation composed of Maitre Isabelle AMEGANVI, Maitre Jean Tchessa ABI, Kassandou ABI, other CST activists, and Monzolouwe ATCHOLI KAO himself, had begun the campaign programme with speeches when a group of militiamen wearing T-shirts bearing the logo of the UNIR party (the ruling party) suddenly arrived on the scene armed with clubs, knives, machetes and other bladed weapons and began attacking them under the gaze of the two gendarmes who were there to maintain law and order. They report that, once informed, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) dispatched a delegation, which arrived too late after the incident. 24. They recall that in August 2012, a delegation from the 'Sauvons le Togo' (Save Togo) collective (CST) delegation composed of Zeus AJA VON, Gabriel Mensah AGBEYOME KODJO, Komi WOLOU, Raphael N. KP ANDE-ADZARE, Raphael BIYAOU, Claude AMEGANVI, Gerard ADJA, Bode TCHIAKOURA, Gabriel JOHNSON, ATCHOLI KAO, Francis PEDRO, was prevented from holding an awareness-raising and information meeting on the issue of political reforms in Kara by a group of militiamen whose leader, a man named Badanaro ROMI ESSOMLA, threatened the delegation by saying: 'What you are doing in Lome, do you think you can do that here in Kara?' 25. They argue that well before the day of the meeting, and sent to the scene to prepare for awareness-raising and mobilisation for the demonstration, ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E., then secretary general of the Association of Victims of Torture in Togo (ASVITTO), and KAMINGH Piabalo, then a student at the 9 ~ ~ University of Kara and a sympathiser of the CST, were victims of an attempted kidnapping in Kara by these militiamen; 26. They reveal that A TCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E, who had already been tortured during his anest in 2009 (see the case of Kpatcha Gnassingbe and others v. the State ofTogo,judgmentno. ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/13 of3 July 2013), can no longer visit this city, which is nevertheless his home town, for security reasons, and the other was forced to leave his country, for fear of being molested, and has been living on exile in Ghana; 27. They add that through this practice, the city of Kara has become a stronghold for those in power, 'a state within a state,' in violation of the Togolese Constitution, which affirms in its first Article that: 'The Republic of Togo is a secular, democratic and social state governed by the rule of law. It is one and indivisible entity.' 28. Continuing their account, they assert that on 15 September 2012, supporters of the Front Republicain pour l 'Altemance et le Changement [Republican Front for Alternation and Change (FRAC)] and the 'Collectif Sauvons le Togo (CST)' were victims of an unusually violent attack in the Adewui neighbourhood of Lome, where they had gathered for a street demonstration, by individuals armed with clubs and machetes, acting under the 'favourable' gaze of the security forces; 29. They note that Colonel YARK DAMEHAME, Minister of Security and Civil Protection, announced that he had submitted the findings of his investigation to the Public Prosecutor at the Lome Court, who, according to him, must decide how to proceed with this case; However, no investigation has been opened since then and not a single anest has been recorded to date; 30. They assert that, in a letter dated 27 September 2012, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the Collective of Associations Against Impunity in Togo (CACIT) and Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture in Togo (ACAT TOGO) submitted a request to the President of the Republic of Togo, Faure Essozimna GNASSIGBE, with a request to conduct an 'independent investigation into the violence that occurred during the demonstrations by the Collectif Sauvons 4t % le Togo (CST) and the Front Republicain pour l'Altemance et le Changement (FRAC) on 15 September 2012 in Lome'; 31. They further maintain that on 9 January 2018, six civil society organisations, namely the Reseau des Jeunes Africains pour la Democratie et le Developpement (REJADD-TOGO), Novation Internationale, Solidarite Planetaire, Nouveau Citoyen, the Association des Jeunes pour !'Assistance et !'Action Humanitaire (AJAAH) and Action Sud, issued a statement reporting 'violence resulting in assault and battery .. . against eight activists from the Parti National Panafricain (PNP)' in Kara and demanded 'that an investigation be opened to identify and bring the perpetrators and instigators of these acts ... before the competent courts so that justice may be done to the members of the PNP who were seriously assaulted by these individuals '; 32. They recall that in November 2019, AMENUVEVE Basile, Secretary General of the Synergie des Eleves et Etudiants du Togo (SEET), an association defending students' rights, who was on tour at the University of Kara, accompanied by one of his comrades to revitalise the SEET section of the said University, was severely assaulted and subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by individuals armed with ropes and studded sticks claiming to be university police, with the aim of obtaining from him the reasons for his presence in Kara and extorting a confession from him; 33. They maintain that serious harm was done to his physical integrity, in addition to his mobile phone being taken, and that to date, the Togolese State has taken no action to shed light on this heinous act of which AJ\1ENUVEVE Basile was a victim, even though the person concerned duly referred the matter to the National Human Rights Commission by letter dated 25 November 2019, requesting that light be shed on this case and that the perpetrators and instigators be brought to justice for their actions. 34. The Applicants report that in the same letter, AMENUVEVE Basile stated that on 21 November 2018, he was subjected to mob violence in the Botanical Gardens of the University of Lome by security guards and University Police Officers, as well as by militiamen, and that he is now forced to live in hiding for fear of his safety and even his life; 35. The Applicants note that, faced with the scale of this socially reprehensible phenomenon, the State of Togo, through its institutions, particularly the judiciary, has taken no appropriate measures to stop it, but on the contrary has adopted an attitude that encourages and covers up such acts; 36. The Applicants consider that the best illustration of this complicity lies in the fact that these individuals carrying knives often act with their faces uncovered and alongside the police and security forces, without the latter being able to take any action to prevent them, as if these security forces had received instructions from their superiors to facilitate the commission of these acts of violence and promote impunity for their perpetrators. 37. They assert that no legal proceedings have been initiated by the competent authorities, in particular the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that these militiamen, who acted with their faces uncovered alongside the security forces, their accomplices and instigators, be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the laws of the Republic and the international commitments entered into by the State of Togo, which protect the rights to physical integrity, safety, security and life of citizens, as well as their rights to freedom of movement, freedom of expression, association, assembly and demonstration; 38. They emphasise that it is on the basis of these violations and the failure of the Togolese authorities to take the necessary legal action that they have decided to refer the matter to the ECOW AS Court of Justice. b) Pleas - in - law invoked 39. In support of their claims, the Applicants rely on the following legal instruments: - the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Articles 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12) - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Articles 2, 12 and 20) :t4 ~~ - the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 9 and 12) - the Constitution of the Republic of Togo (paragraph 5 of the preamble to the Constitution, Articles 13, 21, 22, 30 and 50) 'Declaration on the Right and - United Nations Resolution 53/114 on the Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms'. c) Conclusions 40. The Applicants solicit that may it please the Court: As to formal presentation - To declare itself competent to hear the dispute; - To declare the application as admissible; - To declare their application for default judgment as admissible and well-founded; As to the merits of the case: - To declare and adjudge that the State of Togo has violated the following fundamental rights of the applicants: • For AMENUVEVE Basile: the rights to physical and mental integrity, to safety and security of person, and to freedom of movement; • For ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E. and KAMINGH Piabalo: the rights to mental integrity, safety and security of their person, and freedom of movement; l'Homme (LTDH), • For the organisations Ligue Togolaise des Droits de Association des Victimes de Torture au Togo (ASVITTO), Synergie des Eleves et Etudiants du Togo (SEET), Mouvement pour la Justice Sociale (MJS) and ts to freedom of movement, Mouvement Conscience Mandela (MCM): the ri freedom of assembly and demonstration, as well as their rights as enshrined in Articles 1 and 2 of United Nations Resolution 53/144 on the 'Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms'. As to reparation • To enjoin the State of Togo to take all appropriate, urgent and necessary measures to put an end to the practice of militias throughout its national territory, to prosecute and punish the perpetrators and accomplices of this practice in Togo in order to ensure the safety, security, free movement and protection of the physical and mental integrity of all persons living under its jurisdiction, as well as the effective exercise and enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of assembly and demonstration as recognised by national laws and international instruments to which Togo is a party, and by Articles 1 and 2 of United Nations Resolution 53/144 on " Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"; • To order the State of Togo to pay, for all forms of harm combined, the sums of: - Fifty million (50,000,000) CFA francs to each of the Applicant associations, i.e. a total sum of two hundred and fifty million (250,000,000) CFA francs; " - Two hundred million (200,000,000) CFA francs to ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E; two hundred million (200,000,000) CF A francs to KAMINGH Piabalo; - - three hundred million (300,000,000) CFA francs to AMENUVEVE Basile; • To order the defendant to bear all costs; 41. The Defendant did not file any pleading following the notification of the initiating Application done on it; VIL ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT a) Summary of facts 42. The defendant, which had thirty (30) days from the date of notification of the Application made to it on 19 January 2022, did not request an extension of time nor did it file a statement of defence with the Registry; VIII. JURISDICTION 43. The Applicants invoke Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05) of 19 January 2005 and argue that the ECOW AS Court of Justice is a regional court which has, , among other powers, the authority to sanction human rights violations by Member States and to interpret and apply the acts of the ECO WAS Community; 44. They assert that the Court is a human rights court and that, as a result, it has jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, as well as the various international legal instruments for the protection of human rights, in order to ensure the protection of victims of human rights violations in the Member States of the Community. They specify that the Respondent is a Member State of the ECOW AS Community and that the reported violations are taking place on its territory; 45. The Applicants point out that, according to the established case law of the Court, it is sufficient for the Application to simply refer to international human rights instruments, which form the core of the Community legal order in the field of human rights, in order to establish its formal jurisdiction as determined by the provisions of Articles 9. 4 and 10 of Supplementary Protocol APl/01/05 on the ECO WAS Court of Justice concerning, respectively, the subject matter (human rights violations) and the referral of cases to the Court. They add that the Court reiterated this principle in its judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/09/11 of 7 October 2014 in the aforementioned case of Madame AMEGANVI Manavi Isabelle and others v. the State of Togo. They conclude that the case law is consistent in this regard and that the Court should declare itself competent to hear the dispute. COURT ANALYSIS 46. The Court recalls that its jurisdiction in human rights disputes is governed by Article 9 .4 of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, which provides that: "4. The Court has jurisdiction to examine cases of violations of human rights that have occurred in any member State. ( ... ) "'. In accordance with its established case law, the Court reiterates that it has always declared itself competent when the Application refers to allegations of violations of fundamental rights and those allegations are supported_by a body of factual evidence and legal instruments relating to human rights ratified by the State concerned; 47. The Court points out that it has already adopted this pos1t10n in several judgments, notably (Judgment ECW/CCJ/WG/09/20 of 23 June 2020: Amnesty International Togo Judgment No. ECW /CCJ/JUD/25/22 of 25 May 2022: Collaborating Political Parties (CPP) v. Republic of Liberia, §35); v. Republic of Togo, §24-25; 48. The Court notes that in the present case, the Applicants allege the violation of several human rights, namely the right to physical and mental integrity, the right to safety and security, the right to freedom of movement, and the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration. In support of these allegations, they invoke the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 49. The Court concludes, in light of the foregoing, that the Applicants allege specific instances of violations of their fundamental rights and the relevant texts; 50. The Court notes that the Respondent has ratified the instruments cited by the Applicants, in particular the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 51. The Court observes that the rights invoked by the Applicants are among the human rights falling within its jurisdiction; 52. As the Respondent is a Member State of ECOWAS, all the conditions are met for the Court to declare itself competent to hear this case, in accordance with its own established case law; IX. ADMISSIBILITY 53. The Applicants invoke the provisions of Article 10.d of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, which provides that: "Access to the Court is open to .... : ( d) any person who is the victim of human rights violations" and the case law of the Court to conclude that their Application is admissible. To corroborate their allegations, they assert that in the case of Dame HADIDJATOU Mani Koraou v. the Republic of Niger, the Court ruled that "human rights, being inherent to the human person, are "inalienable, imprescriptible and sacred' and cannot therefore be subject to any limitation whatsoever. Consequently, it declares Ms HADIDJATOU Mani Koraou 's case as admissible, as to formal presentation" (ECOWAS, Court of Justice, 27 October 2008, ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/08). In the case of Isabelle AMEGANVI and co-Applicants, the Court recalled that "the mere allegation of human rights violations by the State of Togo on the territory of the State of Togo, a Member State of the ECO WAS Community, on the basis of the relevant provisions of Articles 9. 4 and 10 of Supplementary Protocol A/SP. 1/01 /05 relating to the Court is sufficient to declare admissible the Application initiated by the Applicants, natural persons claiming to be victims of human rights violations allegedly committed on the territory of a Member State of the Community"; 54. They claim that they are victims of human rights violations and therefore request that the Court declare their Application as admissible; COURT ANALYSIS 55. The Court recalls that its jurisdiction, like that of any comi, is based on a set of conditions that must be met by any Applicant; Indeed, Article 1 0.d of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol provides that: <<Access o the Court is open to ... any person t,~ ~ who is a victim of human rights violations; the application submitted for this purpose: i. shall not be anonymous; ii. shall not be brought before the Court of Justice of the Community when it has already been brought before another competent international court>>; 56. The Court points out that the conditions laid down in that provision for bringing a case before it are that the Applicant must be a victim, the Application must not be anonymous and there must be no similar proceedings pending before another international court competent to deal with human rights disputes; 57. The Court notes that in the present case, it has been seized by both legal entities (A) and natural persons (B) claiming to be victims of violations of their fundamental rights. The court will therefore examine, for each of them, whether the conditions set out in Article 1 0.d are met, in particular whether they have legal capacity to bring proceedings before it; A REFERRAL BY LEGAL ENTITIES 58. The Court recalls that both natural persons and legal entities may bring cases before it, provided that they meet the conditions set out in Article 1 0.d of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol and have the legal capacity to do so under their national law· ' 59. The Court notes that, in the case of legal persons, it has accepted referrals from them where they have the legal capacity to bring legal proceedings and claim the violation of rights that may be held by a legal person, in particular the right to freedom of expression, demonstration, assembly, property, etc.; 60. The Court recalls its case law on this issue, in particular the judgments handed down in the cases of Rencontre Africaine pour la Defense des Droits de /'Homme (RADDHO) v. Republic of Senegal (Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/RUL/14/12 of ...... July 2012), in which it held that: 'The Court notes in this case that RADDHO is a legal entity with the legal capacity to be registered as such, namely that RADDHO is an NGO based in Senegal, where it has its headquarters, carrying out activities to promote and defend human rights both in Senegal and throughout Africa, in the interests of individuals who are victims of violations of their rights'; and the case of Coordination Nationale des Delegues-Departementaux de la flliere Ca/ e-Cacao (CNDD) v. the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire (Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/WG/05/09 of l 7/12/2009, p. 6, §24), in which it stated that: "( ... ) While it is true that the rights and freedoms guaranteed by human rights instruments are for the benefit of individuals, it remains nonetheless the case that legal persons also have rights to assert'; and the Dexter Oil v. Republic of Liberia case (Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUG/03/19), in which the Court stated that: 11( . . ) On the other hand, the rights of a legal person are fundamental rights necessary for the existence of a legal person, rights that a legal entity can enjoy and of which it can be deprived,· for example, the right to freedom of expression,· the right to property .... The exceptions established under which legal persons may bring legal action are as follows: fundamental rights that do not depend on human rights and that include the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of expression. .. ''; 61. The Court notes that, in the present case, the above-mentioned legal entities allege a violation of their rights to freedom of assembly and demonstration. These are rights that a legal entity may invoke. In doing so, they may be granted the status of victims who may bring proceedings before the Court for violation of such rights; 62. The Court also notes that the legal entities mentioned in the Application are clearly identified and that it does not appear from the proceedings that the Application is pending before another international court competent to deal with human rights disputes; 63. The Court emphasises, however, that while the conditions for the admissibility of the Application are met for some of the legal entities bringing it before it because they have legal capacity to bring proceedings before it, others do not have such legal capacity; 64. Indeed, the Court notes that it appears from the documents in the case file that while the Togolese League for Human Rights (LTDH) (with egintration umber 1218/MATD-SG-DAPOC-DOCA of 7 November 2005) and the Synergy of Students of Togo (SEET) (with registration number 1106/MATDL-SC-PLPAP DOCA dated 8 December 2017) have receipts confirming their legal personality in accordance with Togolese law, the Association of Victims of Togo (ASVITTO), the Movement for Social Justice (MJS) and the Mandela Consciousness Movement (MCM) do not have such legal personality; 65. Whereas, the existence of such legal personality is essential for a legal entity to bring a case before the Court, as it stated in the RADDHO v. Republic of Senegal judgment cited above; 66. The Court also notes that, with regard to the Association of Victims of Torture in Togo, it had, in judgment no. ECW /CCJ/JUD/42/24 of 22 November 2024, concluded that its Application was inadmissible on the grounds of lack of legal capacity, since it did not have legal personality in accordance with Togolese law on associations. In the present case, its legal situation has hardly changed, as it still does not have a certificate enabling it to have this legal personality; 67. The Court emphasises that, in addition to ASVITTO, MJS and MCS have not produced the receipt certifying their legal personality in accordance with Togolese law. In the absence of proof of their legal personality giving them the capacity to act before it, the Court can only declare their action inadmissible; 68. The Court notes that LTDH and SEET have receipts issued by the Togolese authorities. They have therefore provided proof that they have legal personality and the capacity to bring proceedings before it. Their action must therefore be declared as admissible; B REFERRAL BY INDIVIDUALS 69. The Court notes that the above-named Applicants are natural persons. However, the lack of information on their year of birth may raise questions as to whether they are of legal age; 70. The Court notes, however, that two of them are students and one is a representative of ASVITTO. In view of their status, the Court presumes that they are of legal age; 71. The Court notes that they allege that they are victims of violations of their physical and mental integrity, their rights to safety and security, and their right to freedom of movement, and that they have not brought their case before another international court with jurisdiction over human rights disputes; 72. The Court finds that, in accordance with Article 1 0.d of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, their action is admissible; X ON THE NATURE OF THE DECISION 73. On 8 April 2024, the Applicants requested that the Court issue a default judgment against the Defendant. In support of their request, they explained that they had filed a claim against the Defendant with the Court of Justice on 18 January 2022 and that on 19 January 2022, the Chief Registrar of the Court had notified the defendant of the Application, informing it that it had one month (30 days) to file a defence; 74. The Applicants argued that the one-month (30-day) period granted to the Defendant had expired without the Defendant filing a statement of defence, whereas under Article 90 of the Rules of the Court, << 1. If a defendant on whom an application initiating proceedings has been duly se-rved fails to lodge a defence to the application in the proper form within the time prescribed, the applicant may apply for judgment by default. 2. The application shall be served on the defendant. 3. The Court may decide to open the oral procedure on the application. 4. Before giving judgment by default the Court shall, after considering the circumstances of the case consider: {a) Whether the application initiating proceedings is admissible, {b) Whether the appropriate formalities have been complied with, and (c) Whether the application appears well founded. 5. The Court may order a preparatory inquiry. 6. A judgment by default shall be enforceable.(. . .) > > Consequently, the Applicant requested that the Court issue a default judgment against the Defendant pursuant to the provisions of the aforementioned Article 90; ANALYSIS BY THE COURT ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 75. The Court notes that in the present case, the Applicant lodged the Application with the Court on 18 January 2022 and that the Registry notified the Respondent State of the Application on 19 January 2022 at the usual address of its legal representative; 76. In accordance with Article 35 of the Rules of Court, the Respondent had one (01) month to submit its defence. It therefore had until 19 February 2022 to file the said defence. On that date, no statement of defence had been filed by the respondent, so on 6 June 2023, the Court Registry sent the Judge-Rapporteur a certificate of non filing of a statement of defence, noting the absence of any submission by the Respondent. On 8 April 2024, the applicants requested that the Court issue a default judgment against the Defendant. Although this second Application was notified to the Defendant on the same day, it also failed to elicit any response from th::efend n~ 4 At the hearing on 10 July 2024, the Applicants requested that the Court grant them the benefit of their submissions pursuant to Article 90 of the Rules of the Court. ANALYSIS BY THE COURT 77. In accordance with the aforementioned Article 90.4, before issuing a default judgment, the Court examines the admissibility of the application, verifies that the formalities have been duly completed and that the Applicant's submissions appear to be well founded; 78. In the present case, the Court finds that the Application submitted by the Applicants fulfils the required formalities and concludes that, in view of the foregoing, the Application for a default judgment should be declared admissible and examined as to its merits. ON THE MERITS OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 79. The Court points out that a judgment is considered to have been rendered 'in absentia' when the defendant has not participated in the proceedings. A judgment rendered in the defendant's absence is referred to as a 'default judgment' 80. The Court recalls that under Article 90 of the Rules of Court, 'if the defendant, having been duly summoned, fails to respond to the Application in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time limit, the Applicant may request the Court to grant his relief; 81. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that no pleadings were filed by the Defendant in the present proceedings, even though he was served with the Application initiating proceedings and the Application for a default judgment. It never appeared at a hearing of the Court, either through its counsel or through its legal representative; 82. The Court therefore concludes that, in this case, pursuant to Article 90 of the Rules, it is appropriate to give judgment by default; 83. The Court notes, however, that granting the Application for a Default Judgment against the Respondent does not mean that a decision on the merits has been made in favour of the Applicant. The Court must examine the case and make a decision on the merits. XI . ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE 84. The Court notes that the Applicants AMENUVEVE Basile, A TCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E and KAMINGH Piabalo allege a violation of their rights to physical integrity, safety, security and freedom of movement (A), while ASVITTO and SEET allege a violation of their rights to freedom of assembly and demonstration (B). Before reaching a decision, the Court will examine the Applicants' claims in tum. A ON THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANTS AMENUVEVE BASILE, ATCHOLI KAO MONZOLOUWE B. E. AND KAMINGH PIABALO TO PHYSICAL AND MORAL INTEGRITY, SAFETY, SECURITY AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT. 85. The Applicants, AMENUVEVE Basile, ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E and KAMINGH Piabalo, claim to have suffered physical harm. They explain that they were victims of acts of violence committed by individuals dressed in civilian clothing at the University of Kara. AMENUVEVE Basile claims to have been the victim of physical assault and inhuman and 'xenophobic' treatment by officers of the Kara university police. ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E. explains that he was the victim of an attempted kidnapping and physical assault in July 2013. KAMINGH Piabalo agrees with his co-Applicants, claiming that he was the victim of physical assault; 86. ATCHOLI KAO Monzonlouwe B. E and KAMING Piabalo report that they are both originally from the city of Kara but can no longer return there for fear of their lives. KAMINGH Piabalo explains that he is living in exile in Ghana; 87. The Applicants assert that although they have brought proceedings before the competent authorities, no action has been taken and no legal proceedings have been brought against the militias; 88. They maintain that the acts of which they were victims constitute a violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."; Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides that '' everyone has the right to liberty and security of person ... ' ', and Article 4 of the African Charter on Human Rights, which provides that' 'Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right. ''; 89. They note that Article 13 of the Togolese Constitution provides that '' The State has an obligation to guarantee the physical and mental integrity, life and security of every person living on the national territory.''; 90. They argue that Article 21 of the same text provides that: ''the human person is sacred and inviolable. No one shall be subjected to torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment''; 91. They add that under Article 50 of the said Constitution, 'The rights and duties set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the international instruments relating to human rights ratified by Togo are an integral part of this Constitution''; 92. They assert that Togo has ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concluded in New York on 10 December 1984, which, as its name indicates, prohibits acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and provides in Article 12 that "Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities pr ceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. ''; and maintain that the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the obligation to investigate are imperative and supranational in nature because they relate to a norm of <<jus cogens>>, a principle of law deemed to be superior and universal; 93. They also argue that Articles 118, 119, 201 and 202 of Law No. 2015-010 of 24 November 2015 establishing the New Penal Code in the State of Togo punish the crime of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with a sentence ranging from ten (10) to fifty (50) years' imprisonment and a fine ranging from twenty-five million (25,000,000) to one hundred million (100,000,000) CFA francs; 94. They assert that by failing to take appropriate and necessary measures to prohibit the practices of the militias since 2005, the Respondent violates their right to freedom of movement as provided for in Articles 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, as well as Article 22 of the Constitution of Togo of 14 October 1992, all of which provide that "Everyone has the right to move freely and to choose their place of residence within a State''; 95. Consequently, the Applicants conclude that the Respondent has violated their rights to security and safety of their persons, their right to physical and mental integrity, and their right to freedom of movement and establishment in the country of their choice; 96. The Respondent has not filed a statement of defence in the case file; ANALYSIS BY THE COURT 97. The Court notes that the Applicants AMENUVEVE Basile, ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe and KAMINGH Piabalo allege a violation of their rights to physical and moral integrity, security and freedom of move ent; 98. The Court recalls that the right to physical and moral integrity and the right to security are provided for in Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR); 99. The Court notes that Article 4 of the ACHPR provides that: "Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right." Article 9 of the ICCPR provides that: "everyone has the right to liberty and security of person ... " Finally, Article 5 of the UDHR states that: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"; 100. The Court notes that it follows from the provisions of the aforementioned legal instruments that the physical and moral integrity of every person, as well as their security, must be respected and protected by the States Parties to those instruments. This therefore implies a prohibition on infringing upon the physical and moral integrity of a person through the prescription of measures, in particular the classification of certain offences as crimes, such as assault and battery, assault, moral or psychological violence, acts of torture, but also the obligation for the State party to punish any act that violates physical and moral integrity. It is up to the State party to take the necessary measures to guarantee the safety of persons living on its territory; 101. The Court also notes that Article 13 of the Constitution of Togo provides that: "The State has an obligation to guarantee the physical and mental integrity, life and safety of all persons living on the national territory." This provision, like the previous ones, imposes on the defendant a set of obligations that must contribute to guaranteeing the physical and mental integrity and safety of Togolese citizens on their territory. 102. The Court further notes that freedom of movement is provided for in Article 13 of the UDHR and Article 12 of the ICCPR. It recalls that Article 13 of the UDHR provides that: " 1. everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the b ders of each State. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country "Under Article 12 of the ICCPR, '' everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. The above rights may be subject to restrictions only if these are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and.freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognised in this Covenant. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter their own country." Furthermore, Article 22 of the Constitution of Togo states that: "everyone has the right to freedom of movement and to choose their place of residence within a State''; 103. The Court further notes that the above provisions guarantee every citizen the right to move freely and reside in the place of their choice within the ten-itory of a State, but also not to be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter their country; 104. The Court emphasises that the Defendant can only be held liable if it appears that it has failed to protect the Applicants' rights to physical and moral integrity, security and freedom of movement; 105. The Court further notes that, in the present case, the Applicants have not produced any objective evidence in support of their allegations to show that the Respondent failed to fulfil its obligations to protect their right to physical and moral integrity, their right to security or their right to freedom of movement. Indeed, with regard to the violations of physical and moral integrity, in particular beatings, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, acts of 'xenophobia' and acts of torture, none of the documents they have produced con-oborates any of the facts alleged; 106. The Court notes that there is no medical certificate, no photographs, no findings or testimonies, or any material evidence to prove the existence of such attacks and threats to their safety. The documents produced (Exhibits 1 to 21) consist mainly of newspaper clippings ( articles from the newspaper ALTERNATIVE on cases of funds - Petrolgate), statements embezzlement of public funds, in particular COVI by Togolese civil society organisations and political parties, copies of judgments or rulings, audit reports by supervisory bodies such as the Court of Auditors on the management of COVID funds and the General Inspectorate of Finance of the Ministry of Economy and Finance in the scandalous case known as "petrolegate ... The Court notes that none of the documents contain any evidence relating to the allegations of physical and moral hann, security and freedom of movement, even though the Court has been seized of allegations of violations of the rights to physical and moral integrity and security; 107. The Court emphasises that the evidence to be produced in support of allegations of human rights violations must be closely linked to the rights violated, as it is not for the Court to seek out evidence that may characterise the violation of rights alleged by the Applicants. Furthermore, it is well established that newspaper clippings or reports from supervisory bodies on allegations of embezzlement of public funds cannot constitute a violation of the right to physical or moral integrity or the right to security; 108. The Court therefore notes that the Applicants merely set out facts and made assertions without even backing them up with concrete, objective evidence; 109. The Court also notes that, with regard to the violation of the right to freedom of movement, the Applicants have not produced any document from the Togolese authorities that would prevent them from moving freely and residing in the place of their choice on Togolese territory; 110. The Court notes that neither ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E. nor KAMINGH Piabalo have produced any such document. The same applies to KAMINGH Piabalo, who claims to have been living in exile in Ghana for some time but has not produced any document to corroborate his statements. He has not produced any document issued by the Togolese authorities that would allow the Court to conclude that he is prohibited from entering Togo, or any document that would attest that he has taken up residence in Ghana with exile or refugee status (refugee or asylum seeker); 111. The Court finds that in the absence of an express prohibition by the Togolese authorities or evidence to suggest such a prohibition on movement or residence in the place of their choice, or on entry into Togo, or a document from the Ghanaian authorities establishing that KAMINGH Piabalo is living in Ghana as a refugee or asylum seeker, it cannot hold the Defendant responsible for violating the right to freedom of movement; 112. The Court reiterates that it has always held that it cannot hold a State liable for human rights violations on the basis of mere allegations. Every Applicant must provide evidence to support the allegations they make. The Court recalls that it has already adopted this position in the cases of Kodjovi Agbelengo Djelou and others, judgment no. ECW/CCJ/nID/17/15, p. 13, in the following terms: "It is incumbent upon the Application to produce evidence in support of his allegations; considering that in applying this principle, the ECO WAS Court of Justice has always considered that all cases of human rights violations brought before it by an Applicant must be described in precise terms, with sufficiently convincing and unequivocal evidence" and the case of Godswill Tommy Udo v. Nigeria, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/IDD/26/16, in these terms: 'It is usually incumbent upon the Applicant in the case to provide evidence to support the allegations made in his Application initiating proceedings'; in 113. The Court further notes that it is necessary for any Applicant alleging a violation of human rights before it to have evidence or a set of indications enabling the Court to conclude that a violation of human rights has occurred; 114. In view of all the above, the Court concludes that the Defendant cannot be held responsible for the violation of the rights to physical and moral integrity, safety and freedom of movement of the Applicants Al\.1ENUVEVE Basile, ATCHOLI KAO Monzonlowe B. E and KAMINGH Piabalo; B ON THE VIOLATION THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY RIGHTH TO ASSEMBLY, ASSOCIATION AND DEMONSTRATION 116. The Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH) and the Synergy of Students of Togo (SEET) maintain that the deployment of militiamen to prevent demonstrations by attacking protesters has become common practice in Togo. To corroborate their allegations, they cite examples, including that of the delegation from the 'Collectif Sauvons le Togo' (CST) composed of Ma'itre Zeus AJA VON, Gabriel Mensah AGBEYOME KODJO, Professor Komi WOLOU, Ma'itre Raphael N. KP ANDE ADZARE, Raphael BIY AOU, Claude AMEGANVI, Gerard ADJA, Bode TCHIAKOURA, Gabriel JOHNSON, A TCHOLI KAO, Francis PEDRO, who were allegedly prevented from holding an awareness-raising and information meeting on the issue of political reforms in Kara by a group of militiamen, as well as the FRAC and CST demonstrators who were allegedly attacked by militiamen in September 2012 in the Doumassesse and Adewui neighbourhoods and the attack iri July 2013, on Mr ATCHOLI KAO; 117. The Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH) and the Synergy of Students of Togo (SEET) assert that this violence violates their right to freedom of association, assembly and demonstration as provided for in Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 30 of the Constitution of Togo of 14 October 1992, which provides that "The State recognises and guarantees, under the conditions laid down by law, the exercise of freedom of association, assembly and peaceful demonstration without the use of violence''; 118. The Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH) and the Synergy of Students of Togo (SEET) note that Articles 1 and 2 ofUnited Nations Resolution 53/144 on the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provide in Article I that: "Everyone has the right, individually or in association with others, to promote the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.'' The Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH) and the Synergy of Students of Togo (SEET) further contend that Article 2 of the same text provides that: "' Each State has the primary responsibility and duty to protect, promote and fulfil all human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular by taking the necessary measures to establish the social, economic, political and othe conditions and legal guarantees required to enable all persons within its jurisdiction to enjoy in principle, individually or in association with others, all these rights and freedoms. Each State shall take the necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to ensure the effective guarantee of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration"· ' 119. The Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH) and the Synergy of Students of Togo (SEET) point out that the phenomenon of militias has increased their activities to the extent that they now have to find unforeseen budgetary resources in order to increase their field visits to gather information for reports alerting development partners to the real risks of this phenomenon to democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights and civil liberties in Togo, and also to provide relief to victims by offering them moral and material assistance. The Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH) and the Synergy of Students of Togo (SEET) request that the Court condemn the Respondent for violating their rights to freedom of assembly and demonstration; ANALYSIS BY THE COURT 120. The Court notes that the right to freedom of assembly and association is an essential right in any democratic society. Freedom of assembly, or the right to assemble, which is a public freedom, is the possibility for a group of people to gather temporarily in the same place for a lawful purpose. This right covers the right to organise meetings, sit-ins, strikes, rallies, demonstrations, etc. 121. The Court recalls that these freedoms are provided for in Article 11 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), Aliicle 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 21 of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); 122. Article 11 of the ACHPR provides that: "every individual shall have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law in particular those enacted in the interest of national security, the Safety, heath, ethics and r,'ghts and.freedom of others."; 123. Article 20 of the UDHR, for its part, provides that: '' everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. "; 124. Article 21 of the ICCPR provides that: "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms sof others."; 125. The Court also recalls that Article 30 of the Constitution of Togo provides that: "The State recognises and guarantees, under the conditions laid down by law, the exercise of freedom of association, assembly and peaceful demonstration without the use of violence"; 126. The Court further notes that, like all freedoms, freedom of assembly may be subject to restrictions on grounds of public order, national security or the protection of public health or morals; 127. The Court emphasises that any State party to the above-mentioned instruments which arbitrarily prevents the peaceful assembly of a group of persons who intend to express an opinion through demonstrations, sit-ins or peaceful meetings may be held liable for violating the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration; 128. The Court further notes that, in the present case, the Applicants, the Togolese League for Human Rights and the Synergie des Eleves et Etudiants du Togo, claim that the demonstrations they have been organising for some time have been interrupted or prevented by militias which they say are close to the Togolese authorities; 129. However, the Court notes that, like the applicants, who are natural persons, the L TDH and the SEET have not provided any evidence to support their claims. They have not produced any evidence of a meeting or demonstration being disrupted by a militia, nor have they established any link between such militias, if they exist, and the Togolese authorities. Indeed, in order to conclude that militias have a link with a State, that link must be established by evidence. The mere assertion, without tangible evidence, that these groups of young people carrying knives, acting under the watchful eye of the defence and security forces, is not sufficient to conclude that they are militias acting on behalf of the Togolese authorities. Photographs of young people carrying these knives or interrupting a demonstration or wearing T-shirts bearing the image of the ruling party, as the Applicants themselves claim, could have constituted evidence that would have given more credence to the Applicants' allegations; 130. It was therefore entirely possible for them, during their demonstration, to document the presence of these groups of young people and even to obtain images of their actions, given the technology available today; 131. The Court also notes that certain elements cited by the Applicants in their account to justify the existence of militias, in particular the letter from the Minister of Security and Civil Protection, Yark DAMEHANE, implicitly acknow I edging the existence of militias, the 2018 interview with President Faure GNASSIMGBE in Jeune Afrique magazine referring to militias, the statement by the spokesperson for the US State Department on 24 October 2017 and that of the Quay d'Orsay on 25 October 2017 referring to militias, were not produced in the case file, such that the Court cannot rely on the mention of such statements in the Applicants' account to give them probative value and conclude that militias close to the Togolese authorities exist; 132. The Court considers that, in accordance with its case law cited above, it cannot rely solely on the Applicants' statements to conclude that their right to freedom of assembly has been violated, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that militias prevented the Applicants from assembling or demonstrating, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, that these militias, if they exist, have any connection with the Respondent. In view of the above, the Court concludes that the Respondent did not violate the Applicants' right to freedom of assembly and demonstration. XII ON REPARATION OF THE ALLEGED PREJUDICES SUFFERED 133. The Court notes that the Applicants solicit that may it please the Honourable Court To order the State of Togo to take all appropriate, urgent and necessary measures to put an end to the practice of militias throughout its national ten-itory, to prosecute and punish the perpetrators and accomplices of this practice in order to ensure the safety, security, free movement and protection of the physical and mental integrity of all persons living under its jurisdiction, as well as the effective exercise and enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of assembly and demonstration as recognised by national laws and international instruments to which the Respondent is a party, and by Articles 1 and 2 of United Nations Resolution 53/144 entitled 'Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"· ' To order the Respondent to pay, for all forms of harm combined, the following sums: - "Fifty million (50,000,000) CFA francs to each of the applicant associations, i.e. a total sum of two hundred and fifty million (250,000,000) CFA francs"; - Two hundred million (200,000,000) CFA francs to ATCHOLI KAO Monzolouwe B. E; - Two hundred million (200,000,000) CF A francs to KAMINGH Piabalo; - Three hundred million (300,000,000) CFA francs to AMENUVEVE Basile; 134. The Court reiterates that its jurisdiction over human rights violations allows it not only to find such violations but also to order redress where appropriate; 135. Nevertheless, the Court specifies that damages are awarded to the victim of an injury only to compensate for the harm that the victim has actually suffered as a result of the fault of the perpetrator of the harmful act; 136. It follows that the victim must prove his or her status as a v1ct1m and demonstrate the damage for which he or she is seeking compensation; 137. The Comt notes that it has always ordered compensation when it has found that the respondent State has violated the Applicant's rights; 138. The Court notes that, in the present case, it has sufficiently established that the fundamental rights invoked by the Applicants have not been violated by the Respondent; 139. The Court considers, in these circumstances, that their claim for compensation for the harm they allegedly suffered must be declared unfounded; XIII. ON COSTS 140. Under Article 66, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if the other party so requests. The Court notes that in this case the defendant did not make such a request. The Court rules that the Applicants, having been unsuccessful, shall bear their own costs. FOR THESE REASONS The Court Sitting in a public hearing, in a default judgment proceedings, in regard to the Respondent, and having heard the Applicants: On jurisdiction Declares that it is competent to examine the present litigation; On admissibility - Declares the action brought by the Association of Victims of Torture in Togo (ASVITTO), the Social Justice Movement (MJS) and the Mandela Consciousness Movement (MCM) as inadmissible on the grounds of lack of legal personality and therefore lack of capacity to bring proceedings; - Declares, however, the action brought by the Togolese League for Human Rights (L TDH), the Synergy of Pupils and Students of Togo (SEET), AMENUVEVE Basile, ATCHOLI KAO Monzonlowe B. E, and KAMINGH Piabalo as admissible; ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE - Declares that the Defendant did not violate the right to physical and moral integrity, the right to security, and the right to freedom of movement of the Applicants AMENUVEVE Basile, ATCHOLI KAO Monzonlowe B. E., and KAMINGH Piabalo; - Also declares that Togo did not violate the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration of the Togolese Human Rights League (LTDH) and the Synergy of Pupils and Students of Togo (SEET); Consequently, - The Court declares that there is no need to order the Defendant to take all appropriate, urgent and necessary measures to put an end to and eradicate the practice of militias throughout its national territory, including the prosecution ices of the practice of militias in and punishment of the perpetrators and accom Togo. ON COSTSS Declares that the Applicants shall be their own costs. Thus done and adjudged on the month, day and year as stated above. AND THE FOLLOWING HA VE APPENDED THEIR SIGNATURES Hon. Judge Ricardo Claudio GON<;ALVES Hon. Juge Sengu Mohamed KOROMA Hon. Juge Gberi-be OUATT ASSISTED BY: Dr. Yaouza OURO-SAMA 38