Communication No. 1159/2003 Submitted by: Mariam Sankara et al. (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: Mariam, Philippe, Auguste and Thomas Sankara State party: Burkina Faso Date of adoption of Views: 28 March 2006 Subject matter: Failure to conduct a public inquiry or legal proceedings following the assassination; denial of justice based on political opinions Procedural issues: Request for re-examination of the admissibility decision of 9 March 2004 Substantive issues: Failure to conduct a public inquiry or legal proceedings following the assassination; inhuman treatment; failure to correct a death certificate; denial of justice; principle of “equality of arms”; right to be heard by an independent and impartial court within a reasonable period; right to security of the person; discrimination based on political opinions Articles of the Covenant: 7; 9, para. 1; 14, para. 1; and 26 Article of the Optional Protocol: 5, para. 1 Finding: Violation (arts. 7 and 14, para. 1) 1.1 The authors, Ms. Mariam Sankara (born on 26 March 1953 and residing in France) and her sons Philippe (born on 10 August 1980 and residing in France) and Auguste Sankara (born on 21 September 1982 and residing in France) are, respectively, the wife and children of Mr. Thomas Sankara, former President of Burkina Faso, who died on 15 October 1987. The authors state that they are acting on behalf of Mr. Thomas Sankara and as victims themselves. They allege violations by Burkina Faso of: article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant in connection with Thomas Sankara; articles 2, paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) and (b), 14, paragraph 1, 17, 23, paragraph 1, and 26 of the Covenant in connection with Ms. Sankara and her children; and also article 16 of the Covenant in the case of Auguste Sankara. The authors are represented by counsel, Vincent Valai and M. Milton James Fernandes, of the Collectif Juridique Internationale Justice pour Sankara. 1.2 The Covenant and the Optional Protocol thereto entered into force for Burkina Faso on 4 April 1999. Facts as presented by the authors 2.1 On 15 October 1987, Thomas Sankara, President of Burkina Faso, was assassinated during a coup d’état in Ouagadougou. 120 120 2.2 From 1987 to 1997, the authorities did not, according to the authors, conduct any inquiry into this assassination. Moreover, on 17 January 1988, a death certificate was issued, falsely stating that Thomas Sankara had died of natural causes. 2.3 On 29 September 1997, within the 10-year statute of limitations, Ms. Mariam Sankara, in her capacity as spouse and on behalf of her two minor children, lodged a complaint with the senior examining judge in the Ouagadougou Tribunal de Grande Instance against a person or persons unknown for the assassination of Mr. Thomas Sankara and also for the falsification of administrative documents. On 9 October 1997, the authors deposited a bond of 1 million CFA francs, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.4 On 29 January 1998, the Procurator-General of Faso issued a direction not to commence a judicial investigation, challenging the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts on the grounds that the alleged events occurred in a military establishment among members of the armed forces and non-combatant personnel, and that the death certificate had been issued by the armed forces health service and signed by a physician who had the rank of commander, and was hence a member of the armed forces. 2.5 On 23 March 1998, by order No. 06/98, the examining judge decided, on the contrary, that the Ouagadougou Tribunal de Grande Instance was the ordinary court competent to examine the case.1 1 The examining judge considered that, in accordance with article 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the examination division of the Ouagadougou Tribunal de Grande Instance had jurisdiction in the light of the location of the crime and the fact that it was not timebarred. “[…] Considering that, in the present case, it was not reported that the crime of premeditated murder in question had taken place in a military establishment; that even if this were true, it should be noted that the perpetrator or perpetrators of this crime have not been identified to date; that this, moreover, is the reason why the complaint was lodged against a person or persons unknown; that consequently, in the present circumstances, it would be very hazardous, without having previously identified the perpetrators, to conclude that they were members of the armed forces; that even if the person responsible for issuing a false administrative document had military status, it should be pointed out that this second offence is subsidiarily linked to the first, namely premeditated murder, in the sense that its existence depends on the existence of the first, which is the principal