Article 7 of the African Charter establishes that every individual has the right to have their case heard, which includes the right to an appeal to competent national organs, the right to be presumed innocent, the right to defence and the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court.196 In the Kilwa case, the ACHPR considered that the absence of a fair trial against the perpetrators of the violations constituted a violation of Article 7. In particular, the fact that the victims were interrogated in the absence of their counsel and in a language they did not understand constituted a violation of the right to defense under Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter.197 Similarly in the Chief Ebrimah Manneh case it was held that detaining an individual without trial or without levelling an offence against them for over a year was contrary to the rules enshrined in Article 7. The right to family life and economic, social and cultural rights While acknowledging the suffering of the next-of-kin and the relatives of the disappeared persons, the case law of the HRCt on ED has not generally addressed the right to family life. This may be because the consequences of the disappearance for the relatives are most often addressed as forms of ill-treatment and torture and violations of the right to effective remedy. The right of family life has not been addressed in the context of ED by the African Commission. The WGEID has found that ED entails the violation of the right to family life and several economic and social rights.201 Women are most impacted by ED as wives, mothers, sisters or daughters of male victims.202 The WGEID has recognised that ED necessarily deprives people of economic, social and cultural rights through placing them outside the protection of the law.203 ED divests people of access to employment204 and deprives children of their right to education.205 In its jurisprudence on ED, the HRCt rarely considers the violation of the right to a fair trial per se. Instead, the absence of a fair process and the arbitrary nature of the punishment suffered by the victims are more often addressed under the violation of the right to be recognised as a person.198 On the other hand, the Committee generally holds that the impunity of the perpetrators and obstacles that prevent the applicants from bringing legal proceedings at the domestic level constitute a violation of the right to effective remedy. The HRCt has found a violation of Article 14 when the applicant proved that the victim of ED had been denied access to justice and subjected to an unfair judicial process. In addition to the impact on the disappeared person, the WGEID has found that ED affects the economic, social and cultural rights of the direct victim’s family. Because of traditional gender roles, male victims are often the sole “breadwinner” of the family: their disappearances therefore result in loss of income.206 Additionally, the disappeared person’s family may be ostracised from their community, owing to false allegations of criminal conduct and fears of associating with targets of an ED.207 The IACtHR has also frequently found violations of Article 8, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, and Article 25, which protects the right to judicial protection, taken together with Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) in cases involving ED, including where the disappearance took place before the recognition of its jurisdiction by a respondent State.199 The IACtHR has also recognised that ED might violate the procedural rights of family members of the disappeared persons.200 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 The WGEID has also identified that those who lack economic, social and cultural rights are at an increased risk of becoming victims of ED. People living in poverty are often unable to access legal advice or shelter, which results in their particular vulnerability to ED.208 African Charter, supra note 131, Article 7. Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and Others v Democratic Republic of Congo, supra note 158, para. 124. HRCt, Millis v Algeria, Communication no. 2398/2014, 28 June 2018, para. 9. IACtHR, Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, Series C No. 118, judgment of 1 March 2005. IACtHR, Blake v. Guatemala, Series C No. 27, judgment of 24 January 1998. Report of the WGEID, E/CN.4/1492 of 31 December 1981, paras. 165 et seq. Report of the WGEID, A/HRC/30/38/Add.5, 9 July 2015, para. 23. Report of the WGEID, supra note 202, para. 74. Report of the WGEID, supra note 202, para. 18. Report of the WGEID, supra note 202, para. 22. Report of the WGEID, supra note 202 para. 23. Report of the WGEID, supra note 202, para. 23. Report of the WGEID, supra note 202, paras. 8, 9 and 12. 33