CCPR/C/105/D/1303/2004 2.6 The State party established a Commission of Inquiry to investigate alleged torture by its agents of those having been suspected of involvement in the coup. The author or her husband never received a copy of the Commission’s report but were told verbally that those responsible for the torture described by Mr. Chiti in paragraph 2.1 above were identified as State agents. The report recommended that the State party pay compensation to the family. 2.7 In the meantime, in 1998, the Legal Resources Foundation sued the State party on behalf of Jack Chiti. The court found in his favour and ruled that Mr. Chiti, the author and their children be awarded compensation for the illegal eviction from their home and loss and damage of personal effects as well as compensation to Mr. Jack Chiti for the torture suffered. 2.8 Despite the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry as well as the ruling from the Court, the State party refused to pay the compensation. 2.9 Mr. Chiti’s trial suffered unnecessary delays with hearings being often postponed. He was convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Subsequently, his death sentence was cancelled, having been pardoned by the Zambian President 3. While imprisoned, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer but could not afford the prescribed drugs. The prison in which he was serving his sentence failed to provide him with these drugs. Neither was he provided with the high-protein diet recommended for the purposes of slowing down the spread of cancer. He was HIV-positive and was detained in inhuman conditions, denied adequate food, a clean environment and counselling. 2.10 In December 1998, the author with her three youngest children sought asylum in Namibia. They lived at Osire refugee camp for one year in dire conditions. The author came back to Zambia due to her husband’s illness. In September 2002, the author was informed of the worsening of her husband’s health situation. He was hospitalized at Kabwe general hospital. Despite several requests, the hospital refused to transfer Mr. Chiti to Lusaka where all the author’s children had stayed. 2.11 The author’s husband was pardoned by the Zambian President and released on humanitarian grounds due to his poor health in June 2004. He died on 18 August 2004. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that Zambia has violated her rights as well as the rights of her husband, Jack Chiti, and those of her children under articles 2, paragraph 3; 7; 9, paragraph 1; 10, paragraph 1; 12, paragraph 1; 14, paragraph 3 (c) and (g); 16; 17, paragraphs 1 and 2; 23, paragraph 1; 24, paragraph 1; and 26 of the Covenant 4. 3.2 Although it has not been explicitly raised by the author, the communication appears to raise issues under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 11 November 2004, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party argues that after the submission of the initial communication, Jack Chiti passed away and the matter raised in the communication is still pending before national courts. 3 4 4 The quashing of the sentence occurred at the end of June 2004. The author limits herself to listing the rights which have been allegedly violated without making the link with the specific facts outlined in the factual background.