CRPD/C/18/D/22/2014
many regional branches of the High Court. He therefore argues that this remedy is not
available.
The complaint
3.1
The author alleges that he has been a victim of a violation of his rights under articles
5, 15 and 17 of the Convention. He claims that he has been discriminated against on the
basis of albinism, which he considers to be a disability because of the different impairments
and conditions that it entails. In that connection, the author recalls that albinism is a rare,
genetically inherited disorder occurring in both genders, regardless of race, in all countries
of the world. It results in a lack of pigmentation in the hair, skin and eyes, causing
vulnerability to sun exposure and bright light and visual impairment in the large majority of
cases. The author argues that the violence and non-access to justice that he has suffered are
generalized practices against people with albinism in the State party. He states that State
authorities have not taken any preventive or protective measures in that regard because they
consider that violent acts against persons with albinism is linked to witchcraft, which is a
cultural practice with regard to which, a lot of prejudice still prevails in society. The author
therefore considers that he has been a victim of violation by the State party of article 5 of
the Convention.
3.2
The author further claims that the State party has failed to take effective measures to
protect him, as a person with albinism, from the targeted physical, emotional and mental
abuse by non-State actors. The hacking off of his arm was a severe form of torture and
inhuman treatment and resulted in the loss of his independence, in violation of article 15 of
the Convention.
3.3
The author further claims that he has been a victim of a violation of his rights under
article 17 of the Convention, since he was exposed to barbaric forms of suffering that
injured his dignity and physical integrity, and the State party has failed to take any effective
steps against the perpetrators.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
The State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication, dated 23
September 2014, were received on 9 March 2015. The State party considers that the
communication should be found inadmissible for non-exhaustion of all available domestic
remedies. It alleges that an investigation was instituted by the police, based on the author’s
complaint, on the same day that he was attacked, namely 10 April 2010. On 21 April 2010,
a suspect was arrested and arraigned in the District Court of Morogoro for assault causing
grievous harm and bodily injury (criminal case No. 257 of 2010). A trial commenced and
three witnesses testified, including the author. However, during his testimony, the author
informed the Court that the accused person was not one of his attackers. He stated that he
knew the assailants who were his neighbours and were both Maasai men. As a result, the
prosecution withdrew the case against the accused person under section 98 of the Criminal
Procedure Act.
4.2
The investigation of the attack against the applicant is ongoing and efforts are being
made to locate and arrest the assailants and bring them to justice. The State party adds that
the author has never approached the domestic authorities regarding his claim that criminal
investigations were never instituted or that they were delayed, before bringing the matter to
the Committee. It considers that the communication is based on an erroneous belief that the
State party has failed to act.
4.3
As regards the author’s argument that he was unable to pursue and initiate a private
prosecution as that is not provided for in Tanzanian criminal law, the State party submits
that such a possibility does exist under section 99 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that
there is no evidence that the author attempted to initiate such a procedure and failed.
4.4
The State party also submits that the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act
provides for the procedure for the enforcement of basic constitutional rights. The State
party notes that the author states that he failed to institute a civil case owing to his limited
economic resources. The State party argues that that reasoning has no basis since there are a
number of legal aid centres and non-governmental organizations assisting indigents to
3