Experts of the Human Rights Committee Welcome Efforts by Cameroon to Combat Hate Speech, Raise Questions on Trials of Civilians by Military Courts and Tensions between French and English Speakers
The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the sixth periodic report of Cameroon on how the State implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Committee Experts commended Cameroon’s efforts to combat hate speech, while raising questions on the trials of civilians by military courts and tensions between French and English speakers in the country.
A Committee Expert welcomed that, with a view to combatting intolerance and hate speech, the Penal Code had been expanded to include insults directed against tribes, ethnic groups and religions.
Another Committee Expert said the Committee was concerned about the trial of civilians before military courts for terrorism offenses and the systematic failure to preserve fair trial guarantees. An Expert said the report stated that the suspects in the case of the journalist Martinez Zogo were being tried before the military tribunal in Yaoundé. Why was a military court being used for the murder of a civilian journalist? Were civilian defendants tried by this tribunal?
Another Committee Expert said the coexistence between the English-speaking minority and the French-speaking majority was one of the best-known and most serious problems. It had been worsening since 2010 and had given rise to calls for secession, as well as situations of conflict, violence, instability, human rights violations and negotiations. Were the recommendations arising from the national dialogue being implemented to promote bilingualism and ensure the participation of the English-speaking minority in public life? Was the State taking measures to ensure coexistence between all groups in Cameroon, including French and English speakers?
Presenting the report, Eheth Salomon, Permanent Representative of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, said since the review of its last report, Cameroon had made efforts to improve the alignment of its institutional and strategic frameworks with the Covenant. One of the greatest institutional achievements was the reformulation of the National Human Rights Commission, which had a broader mandate and increased financial independence.
Responding to questions, the delegation said military courts addressed offences that involved the use of firearms by security forces. Military courts were not prohibited by the Covenant. They enforced the Criminal Procedural Code and the Constitution, using positive law. Military courts were subject to the same standards of a fair trial. Like all judges, those working in military courts were sworn to act with impartiality and also received training from United Nations bodies and the Red Cross.
The delegation said there were no difficulties between the French- and English-speaking populations of Cameroon. There had been bilingualism in the country for over 100 years. The issues started with a small minority of English speakers who were manipulated by the diaspora. The problems started under a pretext and had evolved into local terrorism. It was important to stop disseminating the idea of a problem between the French and English communities. A law promoted bilingualism, and the National Commission for Bilingualism and Multiculturalism undertook awareness-raising activities, promoted peaceful harmony and discouraged hate speech.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Salomon thanked the Committee for the frank, constructive and respectful exchange. The dialogue had given Cameroon the opportunity to report on the efforts undertaken to ensure the implementation of the Covenant, as well as to identify areas where further efforts were required.
Changrok Soh, Committee Chairperson, in his concluding remarks, said the Committee welcomed Cameroon’s strengthening of the national human rights institutions and policies to combat gender-based violence, while further efforts were required around torture and ill treatment of detainees, the trial of civilians by military courts, and inadequacy of reforms to promote bilingualism in public life, among other concerns.
The delegation of Cameroon was made up of representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of External Relations; the Legal Affairs Unit; and the Permanent Mission of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-sixth session is being held from 19 October to 6 November 2026. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Monday, 26 October to begin its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Jamaica (CCPR/C/JAM/5).
Report
The Committee has before it the sixth periodic report of Cameroon (CCPR/C/CMR/6).
Presentation of Report
EHETH SALOMON, Permanent Representative of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, said despite many peace and security challenges, Cameroon remained strongly committed to the protection of human rights. Since the review of its last report, Cameroon had made efforts to improve the alignment of its institutional and strategic frameworks with the Covenant. The rule of law, combatting impunity, social cohesion, preserving civic space and crisis security management were part of these efforts.
One of the greatest institutional achievements was the reformulation of the National Human Rights Commission, which had a broader mandate and increased financial independence. It had obtained an A status from Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions and had taken on responsibilities acting as the national mechanism for the prevention of torture. Its staff could carry out visits to places where persons were deprived of their liberty.
Cameroon had made steps towards combatting statelessness and in the area of the rights of persons with disabilities, and was focused on combatting impunity. Allegations of violence triggered an investigation and perpetrators, including those who were members of the security, were held accountable before their jurisdiction. Significant steps had been taken to improve prison overcrowing and detention conditions.
Cameroon was characterised by great linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity, and promoting peaceful coexistence and social cohesion was a national priority. In response to the emergence of intolerance and hate speech, including on digital platforms, Cameroon had strengthened its legal and institutional framework.
Under the coordination of the National Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism, established in 2017, awareness-raising campaigns had been carried out to promote peace, tolerance and respect for diversity.
Cameroon’s democratic space continued to be characterised by political and media pluralism. The country had several hundred political parties, as well as a significant number of television channels, radio stations and print media outlets.
The exercise of freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly was guaranteed within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the country.
Cameroon continued to face several challenges in the security context, including terrorist attacks by Boko Haram in the far north region, and violence perpetrated by armed separatist groups in the north-west and south-west regions, which affected civilian populations and, notably, school and health infrastructure. While protecting the population, defence and security forces were subject to rules of engagement that took into account Cameroon’s obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law.
Alongside the security response, the Government favoured a multidimensional approach combining political dialogue, reconstruction, development and reintegration. Programmes for the reconstruction and development of affected regions were being implemented, together with the activities of the National Committee for Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration, established in 2018. Cameroon stood ready to engage with the Committee in a frank and constructive exchange.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said Cameroon had an entire continent’s worth of language and cultural diversity in one country. What measures had been taken to implement the recommendations already made by the Committee? What had been done to implement the Optional Protocol, as well as the Views adopted by the Committee concerning the State party, including on 1813/2008 Akwanga V Cameroon. Had any developments occurred since the last periodic review concerning the legal and institutional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights?
Despite the efforts of the State party and its institutions combatting corruption, the Committee still had concerns. Efforts for combatting corruption did not stem from deep conviction but mostly out of convenience, the lack of judicial independence and immunities that protected those who were in charge. What steps had been taken to tackle corruption at all levels, including within the police, the judiciary and the executive branches of the Government? Could information be provided on investigations into cases of corruption, prosecutions and the penalties imposed? Did the State party intend to develop laws aimed at ensuring access to information of public interest and the protection of whistle-blowers?
The Committee continued to have concerns over the anti-terrorism measures taken by the State party, including the overly broad definition and ambiguity of terrorist acts creating systemic loopholes; the misuse of act 2014/028 against civil society to criminalise actions by journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and opposition members under the pretext of national security; and the trial of civilians before military courts for terrorism offenses and the systematic failure to preserve fair trial guarantees. What steps had been taken to review the above-mentioned act? What actions had been taken by the State party to prevent human rights violations being committed while countering terrorism?
Could information be provided on the legal framework governing the use of force and firearms by the law enforcement authorities, clarifying the consistency of the framework with international standards and indicating what measures were taken by the State party to ensure that they were respected in practice? What were the measures taken to ensure that all allegations of abuse were investigated in a prompt, independent and impartial manner; and the perpetrators, when proven guilty, were prosecuted and punished; and that the victims were adequately compensated? Could information be provided on cases where law enforcement forces had used lethal weapons, including while policing demonstrations or dealing with riots, and the investigations carried out and their results? Was an investigation automatically carried out whenever lethal force was used by law enforcement officials?
Another Committee Expert asked if there were examples of cases where the Covenant had been invoked before Cameroonian courts? Since 2017, the Committee has adopted 12 Views concerning Cameroon. What actions had been taken to implement these Views? Why had no follow-up report been submitted?
What safeguards protected the National Human Rights Commission from the influence of the Government? In what cases could a mandate be terminated? What was the proportion of women among the Commissioners? Was the Commission consulted in the drafting of the report? Had it publicly challenged the Government, including when several human rights associations were nullified in December 2024?
The Commission had conducted 1,085 visits to places of detention in 2024. How many of these were unannounced, including in military and intelligence premises? Were its reports published and was it present in all regions? How was its budget determined? Would there be a reform regarding measures around customary courts? Were settlements brought about by traditional chiefs regulated? Was domestic violence criminalised by these courts?
Why was no data available on investigations, prosecutions and convictions?
The report referred to the systematic opening of investigations; what did this entail in practice? Who conducted these investigations, within what timeframe, and how many had led to convictions? What was the outcome of the Zeleved case, six years later? For torture, the sentences cited ranged from three years suspended to four years of imprisonment. How did the delegation view these sentences in relation to the gravity of this crime? Was there a body responsible for complaints against the security forces? Who imposed administrative sanctions, were they published, and did they preclude criminal prosecution?
What were the reasons for the discrepancy of figures regarding civilians killed in Ngarbuh? What was the status of the proceedings before the military tribunal? Had the masterminds behind the operation been investigated? What reparations had the families received? Was there a programme for victims of the crisis, with rehabilitation and psychological support? Did the State provide compensation when a convicted person was insolvent?
The report stated that the suspects in the case of the journalist Martinez Zogo were being tried before the military tribunal in Yaoundé. Why was a military court being used for the murder of a civilian journalist? Were civilian defendants tried by this tribunal? When was a judgment expected? Were all alleged instigators being prosecuted?
The African Commission had requested to send a fact-finding mission to Cameroon in 2021. What follow-up had been given? Did the Government plan to invite United Nations special procedure mandate holders? What measures were being taken to prosecute abuses by armed separatist groups and Boko Haram, while ensuring their right to a fair trial?
How many people had been killed by law enforcement officials during demonstrations since 2017? How many investigations had been opened, prosecutions brought, and convictions handed down? What concrete measures were in place to protect civilians from Boko Haram, and how many perpetrators had been prosecuted? What measures existed to prevent the recruitment of children by armed groups?
How many internally displaced persons did the State record in the north-west, south-west, and far north regions? What assistance did it provide directly, and what was the status of humanitarian access in these regions? Was there specific training provided on conflict-related sexual violence for judges, prosecutors and medical personnel? Would the Government invite the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to visit? What investigations had been conducted on reported disappearances, and how many cases had been clarified?
The report presented the vigilante committees as a means of involving the population in the fight against terrorism, and acknowledged their presence in Ngarbuh, where civilians were killed. What was their legal basis, oversight, training and armament? Who was accountable for their actions, and how many members had been prosecuted? What measures prevented their mobilisation in counter-terrorism operations?
Another Committee Expert said the Committee had received credible information about de facto exemptions, without the State having notified the United Nations Secretary-General, among other restrictions in the security context. Was there a difference between the state of emergency and the state of siege and if so, what were the effects on the application of rights and freedoms? How did Cameroon ensure that non-derogable rights were respected in all circumstances? How did the State ensure that the measures taken in relation to freedom of movement, detention of persons, trials and protection of civic space were in full compliance with the Covenant?
Another Expert welcomed that, with a view to combatting intolerance and hate speech, the Penal Code had been expanded to include insults directed against tribes, ethnic groups and religions. Did the State intend to adopt measures in the future to change its approach towards the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex population in a manner consistent with the values of the Covenant?
A Committee Expert said the Committee had taken note of the new civil registration law. How did this legal shift in the recognition of three types of marriages affect the issue of divorce? Could this be explained, particularly in the context of polygynous marriages, division of property and child maintenance? Had Cameroon considered amending the family law, aiming to achieve equality between men and women in all aspects of family life?
Cameroonian laws still provided for different minimum ages for marriage for girls and boys. Why had this provision not been aligned with the principle of equality? Polygyny was legal and officially recognised in Cameroon and deeply rooted in customary law. How did the State harmonise customary practices with modern legal standards and ensure equal treatment of all wives and all children, particularly in matters of inheritance? What measures were being taken to promote awareness of the principle of legal equality between men and women in areas where customary law remained predominant?
Had Cameroon considered publishing materials similar to the legal assistance guide for widows, addressing inheritance rights between sisters and brothers or other male relatives, women’s property rights and the inheritance rights of children from polygynous families? Had Cameroon considered making relevant judicial decisions in the field of inheritance more widely accessible?
The participation of women in public affairs had increased, which was a welcome development. Were there any measures to further promote and increase women’s participation in municipal and regional executive bodies? The Committee had received information indicating that certain disparities persisted, particularly with regard to the gender pay gap, types of employment contracts, insecure jobs without contracts, and participation in informal economy and unpaid work. Could the delegation comment on these issues?
The Committee understood that violence against women was not an isolated incident, and was rooted in gender inequality, since some of the State’s laws were not in line with the principle of equality. Harmful practices were prohibited by law yet were still present as customary and cultural practices. How did the State plan to enforce existing law or harmonise customary practices with existing laws? What was the current status of the bill on gender-based violence and the anticipated timeline for its adoption?
What specific measures was the State party planning to empower women to report violence and to strengthen their trust in the legal and protection systems? Was information disseminated on judicial decisions and how was the public informed on the penalties and sentences imposed on perpetrators? Had the State party developed plans to establish shelters for victims of domestic violence across all regions, to ensure that women were aware of these services and to empower them to seek emergency assistance when needed? What were the plans to strengthen training programmes?
The Committee noted that the recommendations made in its previous concluding observations had not been taken into account. Had the State party considered reviewing the relevant provisions in light of the concerns previously expressed by the Committee? What obstacles were being faced in amending the relevant provisions of the Penal Code with a view to ensuring access to lawful termination of pregnancy and better protecting the physical and mental health of women and girls? The Committee reiterated its concern that, where abortion remained criminalised subject to limited exceptions, women and girls may be exposed to serious risks to their health. What was Cameroon doing to address the situation and to ensure that the legal framework provided effective access to safe and lawful abortion?
The requirement for prior certification by the Public Prosecutor’s Office could, in practice, delay or prevent timely access to lawful abortion for victims of rape. Could the delegation provide information on the safeguards in place to prevent such delays and ensure timely access in these cases? How was the exception to the criminalisation of abortion, defined by the phrase “serious danger to the health of the mother”, interpreted and applied in practice? What was the current legal position regarding pregnancies resulting from incest, particularly where the victim was an adolescent? What measures had been taken to reach and educate men as well, and to promote their shared responsibility for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said a follow-up mechanism was responsible for looking at the decisions received from the Committee and how to properly implement them. This mechanism could be improved, and Cameroon was pursuing avenues to bolster it. The State party had acceded to conventions on statelessness and had adopted a law on personal data. Human Rights Commissioners needed to be candidates with appropriate human rights training and there needed to be a balance between gender. Current members strove to defend the rights of specific groups. The National Human Rights Commission was involved in the preparation of the report. It did not determine how many visits were carried out annually. The Commission had financial autonomy which was protected by the law, and its budget had increased fivefold over the past six years.
A customary court could not apply a measure which was contrary to the Covenant. When a criminal offence had been committed, proceedings were brought before the criminal court. One hundred and twenty-five persons had been convicted of rape in 2025. The customary courts dealt mainly with property disputes and family issues, but their rulings did not take precedence over civil law.
There were no predefined timeframes for investigations; however, the criminal police and the judiciary were called upon to act as quickly as possible. If offices did not proceed directly, they could be subject to disciplinary penalties. Judges determined the sentences as foreseen in the Criminal Code. Six offices of the gendarmerie had been found guilty of human rights abuses. In most cases, compensation was financial and could be determined by the Police Commission.
The State had developed specialised institutions for combatting corruption; there was no impunity for corruption. Cameroon considered corruption to be a terrible scourge and had taken numerous steps to combat it. Cameroon had a legal and institutional arsenal for preventing and detecting instances of corruption, involving the anti-corruption act. A hotline was used for reporting abuse. The Inspector General and Prosecutors dealt with any suspicions of corruption, and between 2024 and 2025, had dealt with more than 400 cases, including those involving politicians or high-ranking members of the judiciary. Judges were required to exercise activities in line with the law and needed to be independent. The Anti-Corruption Authority could conduct investigations and receive complaints; it also published reports on the state of corruption in Cameroon. Access to information of public interest and protecting whistleblowers could lead to improving the situation of corruption.
The President of the Republic determined the situations of the state of emergency or state of siege; the state of siege was slightly more intense. None of these situations had been invoked since the time of the civil war. Only the President of the Republic could call a state of emergency if there was serious danger. There was no limitation on the freedom of movement, even in times of crisis. Military courts addressed offences that involved the use of firearms by security forces. Military courts were not prohibited by the Covenant. They enforced the Criminal Procedural Code and the Constitution, using positive law. Even when confronted with significant challenges such as Covid-19 or Boko Haram, Cameroon always chose the rights-based path rather than a state of emergency. In states of emergencies, special powers were provided to the authorities who could misuse that power.
Military courts were subject to the same standards of a fair trial. Like all judges, those working in military courts were sworn to act with impartiality and also received training from United Nations bodies and the Red Cross. Around 250 members of the national gendarmerie had benefited from training from the Red Cross on human rights. The 2014 law applied to acts of terrorism, including acts by Boko Haram. Military courts guaranteed a fair trial.
There had been a situation where an exam was accidentally handed out in French, and it was stopped so it could be translated into both English and French, highlighting how multilingualism was valued in Cameroon.
Currently, Cameroonian society did not allow homosexuality. Under the Covenant, the State did not believe it was necessary to expressly prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, as discrimination was already prohibited under the Constitution. No one would discriminate against people because of their gender or sexual orientation in spaces of work, education and healthcare.
Cameroon had legislation which was aligned with the Covenant to guarantee increased protection for women, including against female genital mutilation, sexual harassment and expulsion from the household, among other situations. A workshop had been held in honour of the international day of widows, benefitting over 4,000 people. A guide had been developed to practically assist widows, published in English and French, and later further languages, helping them to understand their inheritance rights. In the case of divorce, men and women were entitled to the same assets.
A national strategy existed to increase the participation of women in the work force. There were also more women working as police officers and judges. The number of women in the army and female police commissioners had increased in recent years. Political life in Cameroon had been characterised by the increased participation of women in recent elections. A framework had been improved to reduce the number of women working in the informal sector. A total of 332 job seekers had benefited from this programme and many women ended up finding formal work, thanks to these efforts.
Several national action plans existed to combat issues such as female genital mutilation, child marriage and other harmful practices. Centres existed to provide safe spaces for women who were victims of gender-based violence. Combatting gender-based violence was part of the general programme on human rights. A draft bill was in the works which tackled gender-based violence.
Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including about the law on access to information; military courts trying civilians, which was a dangerous precedent; how was it ensured that customary law did not take precedence over national law; and the legal follow-up to the individual complaints against Cameroon before the Committee.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Cameroon’s society was at a stage of moral and cultural development, which meant various considerations were required to format people’s mindset. The State needed time. This could not be forced as it would bring about abuse and violations. The issue of abortion was a similar one which was closely linked to society. There were a lot of sociological and cultural concepts which reflected this. Abortion was prohibited under Cameroonian law, and medical grounds were required for undergoing an abortion. It was not possible to have customary principles which ran counter to Cameroonian law. Customary courts were located in places where ethnic groups lived, but criminal proceedings always prevailed over others; for example, a village chief would not be asked to judge a murder.
Military courts should concern military personnel or military offences. If a civilian had a weapon, they were prevented from firing it; only military personnel or members of the police force were permitted to fire a weapon. If there had not been a state of emergency or a state of siege, Cameroon was not going to stimulate them. The Ministry of Justice in Cameroon also produced a report on the situation of human rights in the country. A law on access to information was being studied, and authorities were deeply interested in debating this. When Civil Code provisions ran counter to Cameroon’s international obligations, it was up to judges to apply the provisions of the international instruments, as they had priority.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the use of force and firearms was regulated by various legal texts, which enshrined the principle of proportionality. To prevent undue use of force in regions in crisis, training was provided to security and defence forces. When there was excessive use of force, this led to disciplinary proceedings. For example, in one of the cases mentioned by the Committee, five officers had been sentenced to prison, one for up to 10 years. In 2025, 15 members of the gendarmerie were punished for offences relating to excessive use of force. There was no impunity for abuse; when excessive use of force was applied, this would lead to accountability.
Cameroon was currently studying amendments to the law on abortion. Abortion was not a crime when there were serious health grounds for undertaking it, particularly relating to the health of the mother. Steps were also being taken to increase access to legal and safe abortion. Awareness-raising projects had been undertaken with families and in schools. Social workers and educators received training on legal abortion and how to correctly refer someone who was seeking an abortion. In June 2022, Cameroon made steps to participate in a global initiative partnership on sexual and reproductive health, by providing modern contraceptives in hard to serve areas. Around 200,000 young people had received full sexual and reproductive health education from the Government.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert said that the situation of the death penalty had not really changed; in 2026 alone, two death sentences were handed down (one by shooting and the other by hanging). As of May 2026, there were more than 100 people on death row and almost half of these people had been convicted of a terrorism-related offence, the vague nature of which was already a concern of the Committee. What were the figures for death penalty convictions handed down by military and civilian courts and for which offences? Could the Committee be provided with the number of presidential pardons granted since 2020 for those sentenced to death? What legislative measures were being taken to ensure that the death penalty, pending its abolition, applied only to the most serious crimes?
Did Cameroon intend to proceed with the decriminalisation of the use of freedom of expression or information? The Committee had received information that journalists, human rights defenders, activists, lawyers and academics had been subject to arbitrary arrests and detentions, intimidation, torture, prosecution and trial of civilians by military courts, and even deaths of journalists. Could information be provided on investigations, prosecutions and punishments imposed on the perpetrators of the abuses mentioned and what reparations had been granted to the victims? Was it possible to have a free press and uncensored debate?
The Committee had received information that many demonstrations were organised and harshly repressed by the police, with at least 48 people killed and more than 2,500 arrested, and sometimes arbitrarily detained. Could the delegation comment on this information and address concerns regarding the de facto authorisation regime for demonstrations and baseless bans? What measures had been taken to ensure the supervision of peaceful demonstrations? What investigations had been conducted and sentences handed down to officers who had used excessive force during the repression of peaceful demonstrations? Had the nearly 2,500 people arrested been released or had the trials against them been completed?
The legislative framework contained many vague criteria: "undermining national unity" or state security" for refusing registration, suspending the activities of an association or dissolving it. What remedies were available when the administration refused de facto, while remaining silent, the registration of an association? Did the State plan to reform its legislation on the fight against the financing of terrorism and money laundering to avoid the instrumentalisation of these laws to silence associations?
Another Committee Expert asked the delegation to clarify the consistency of the national framework regarding international standards on the use of force? Recurrent reports underscored that human rights defenders and political opponents were frequently targeted with violence and intimidation. Police brutality remained a problem, including the abuse and torture of detainees. Places of detention were lacking the minimum of hygiene, sanitation, drinking water, basic health care and social services, and food, and all of them were overcrowded.
What measures had been taken to strengthen the prevention of torture and ill treatment? What was the timeline for the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, signed by the State party in 2009? Could information and statistics be provided on cases of torture and ill treatment that were investigated by the competent authorities, and where perpetrators were appropriately punished and victims adequately compensated? What measures were taken by the State party to improve the conditions of detention in places of custody and prisons to align them with the Nelson Mandela Rules and to allow for regular monitoring visits to places of detention?
Another Expert said that in its most recent concluding observations, the Committee expressed concern regarding compliance with the 48-hour time limit for pre-trial detention, where such an extension had not been authorised by a court. Were there still cases of prolonged detention, and had any measures been taken to eliminate them?
In the English-speaking regions, separatist groups such as Ghost Town Mondays were active and obstructed the right to freedom of movement. The State had responded by stepping up checks and adopting measures to strengthen security and freedom of movement. However, the Committee was concerned that this freedom was being restricted by the actions of the State’s security forces. Did the Prefect’s order of 16 July 2024, prohibiting residence in the department of Mfoundi, remain in force? Was the State taking measures to guarantee freedom of assembly, expression and association to foster coexistence in a pluralist and democratic society?
The coexistence between the English-speaking minority and the French-speaking majority was one of the best-known and most serious problems. It had been worsening since 2010 and had given rise to calls for secession, as well as situations of conflict, violence, instability, human rights violations and negotiations. Were the recommendations arising from the national dialogue being implemented to promote bilingualism and ensure the participation of the English-speaking minority in public life? Should the State consider other approaches that promoted pluralistic coexistence between majorities and minorities in a way that actively fostered mutual understanding?
Sixty-eight persons had been arrested in a bar on the grounds of homosexuality and had been sent to prison; the Committee was concerned about the State’s attitude in relation to these acts. Indigenous peoples, including the Baka and the Mbororo, were excluded, socially marginalised and subjected to hate speech. Was the State taking measures to address the needs of these indigenous peoples?
Another Committee Expert asked what was the average length of proceedings and how many cases were awaiting trial? How many applications for legal aid had been accepted? Was there a witness protection programme? How were judges and prosecutors appointed, promoted, sanctioned and dismissed? What role did the President of the Republic and the Minister of Justice play in these decisions? How many times had the Higher Judicial Council met since 2017 and what disciplinary decisions had it taken?
How many civilians had been tried by military courts since 2017? What objective and serious grounds justified this practice? Were military judges active officers subject to the hierarchy of the Ministry of Defence? What safeguards did the lawyers who practiced before these courts have? Were English-speaking defendants tried in English? At what points could a suspect consult a lawyer in police custody in cases of terrorism? Were there any alternative sentences to imprisonment envisaged?
Another Expert acknowledged and commended the efforts undertaken by Cameroon to combat trafficking in persons and measures taken to strengthen the relevant legal framework. How were these measures being implemented in practice and how did they ensure full and effective protection of victims? Did Cameroonian law recognise trafficking of a child for exploitation without requiring proof of force, coercion or deception? What measures had Cameroon taken to ensure that trafficking for domestic labour, domestic servitude and other forms of forced labour were effectively detected, investigated and prosecuted? What guarantees prevented trafficking victims from being arrested, detained or prosecuted for conduct resulting directly from their exploitation?
What measures had been developed to strengthen proactive identification of victims and potential victims? How did Cameroon ensure that all credible allegations of trafficking were investigated, and that perpetrators were prosecuted and, where appropriate, punished? What effective remedies were available to victims of trafficking? What measures were available to protect trafficking victims and witnesses from intimidation, retaliation, further exploitation and violence during investigation and judicial proceedings? Had the Government developed a sustainable strategy to expand training on trafficking to law-enforcement officials?
Had Cameroon considered awareness-raising programmes targeting parents, teachers, law-enforcement officials, social services and other professionals working with children? What measures had Cameroon taken to ensure that child victims of violence and abuse had access to comprehensive assistance?
On the issue of birth certificates, the Committee commended the enactment of the law in 2024. What measures had been taken to ensure the universal and timely registration of births and the issuance of birth certificates to all children born in Cameroon? What had been done to prevent and eradicate the practice of child marriage, which despite being criminalised, remained widespread? What steps were being taken to address the social and economic factors that contributed to child marriage? How were parents, guardians and other individuals who facilitated such marriages held accountable?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said there were no difficulties between the French- and English-speaking populations of Cameroon. There had been bilingualism in the country for over 100 years. Cameroon was originally a German territory, and then in 1916 the State was divided into two groups, around one quarter under the United Kingdom authority and around three quarters under French authority. In 1960, the French-speaking part, under a United Nations trusteeship, acceded to independence. There was then a call for reunification of both territories. The issues started with a small minority of English speakers who were manipulated by the diaspora. The problems started under a pretext and had evolved into local terrorism. It was important to stop disseminating the idea of a problem between the French- and English-speaking communities. No people had been pushed away from the French part because they were English speakers. There had been many mixed marriages between the French and the English speakers; there was symbiosis within the nation.
The basic frameworks between the international and national frameworks were the same when it came to the use of force and firearms. The State respected the basic international principles but was ready to update domestic texts to ensure they aligned with international standards. The report showed that in February 2026, there were 100 people on death row in Cameroonian prisons. Whenever anyone was sentenced to death, their sentence could be commuted, following a decree from 2020. No executions had been carried out for over 30 years in Cameroon; there was a de facto moratorium on the death penalty and it could only be handed down for a small number of very grave crimes. Cameroon had not ratified the Second Optional Protocol on the abolition of the death penalty but took the Committee’s recommendations into account. Since 2014, Cameroon had issued a standing invitation to all special procedure mandate holders to visit the country.
Anti-terrorism measures focused on training and awareness raising for law enforcement officials and the population at large. Three police officers had been sentenced to prison for 10 years for committing torture. Following the suspicious death of a journalist, a legal investigation was launched leading to the arrest of three suspects, who were being tried in the military court. The military hierarchy had ethnical training for law enforcement defence officers. A circular had been issued calling on defence and security forces to respect the complete ban, with any official committing torture to suffer the consequences. There were several hotlines in place, including to the gendarmerie and the Human Rights Commission, to flag cases of torture.
A modern prison had recently been built, housing 1,600 inmates. Since 2005, the State had refurbished around 30 prisons; since 2017, the hosting capacity of the prisons had increased from 17,000 to 36,000. Over 21,000 inmates had benefitted from vaccines in 2024. Staff members in prisons were constantly being trained on new materials, including human rights. Other international mechanisms, such as the Red Cross, had carried out around 15 visits since 2021. The Optional Protocol for the Convention against Torture had been ratified and would be introduced into the State’s protocols.
Several sentences had been handed down for crimes of trafficking in the past few years, including for around 18 to 20 years imprisonment. Cameroon had two separate ministries for the protection of children, both with regional offices to ensure they were close to affected populations. A toll-free hotline enabled victims and witnesses to anonymously report police events. A migrant transit centre housed migrants in the State party. Training of the police and gendarmerie was often conducted in collaboration with civil society organizations.
There were issues with areas in the far north of the country, where the use of explosives by armed groups hindered the population’s safety. Cameroonian authorities were setting up several security and administrative measures to protect people and assets, and promote normal movement. Security forces had increased movements in the cities by increasing checkpoints and police presence. The security forces had also improved the surveillance of main roads and urban areas. When required, escorts were set up to protect cargo moving on the roads. Local authorities regularly assessed the situation on the ground, and operations were carried out in areas of tension to protect against armed groups. Measures implemented needed to respect proportionality and necessity.
Under the written and grounded authorisation from the Prosecutor, custody length could be extended in certain circumstances. Visits to detention centres ensured that the length of custody was respected. When there were cases of extended detention which were unjustified, this could lead to disciplinary action. If people in custody believed their custody was extended beyond the law, they could go to habeas corpus judges. These judges reviewed dozens of cases a year and had sentenced several people who were supposed to be enforcing the law for unjust arrests. Persons in police custody could request to see a doctor and were also in touch with their families.
The Ministry of Justice published a report annually containing all details regarding legal counsel. Cameroon was a bilingual country and people spoke and expressed themselves in both languages. The State party had started a process of recruiting English speakers for the court of appeal and had trained 160 people, including auditors and prosecutors. Cameroon, in conjunction with the United Nations Children’s Fund, was working on publishing a practical guide on the protection of child witnesses within the criminal justice system. The appointment, hiring, promotion and removal of judges was done by the President of the Republic, with the advice of the Higher Council of the Judiciary.
Members of the military judiciary had the same status as those of the civilian judiciary and were required to respect the same procedures, including swearing oaths before the Supreme Court. The act of 1990 stated that demonstrations were permitted, unless there was a risk to public order. The risk needed to be outlined to organisers and an appeal could be launched if a demonstration was cancelled. Firearms could not be used to disperse ordinary demonstrations. Over 12,600 gendarmes had been provided with training in recent years on maintaining public order. When there were abuses, this could lead to proceedings, punishments and reparations. On 8 October 2025, several persons were convicted by the military court to imprisonment for 15 months, while others were released. Participating in a demonstration did not lead to a trial by the military courts, but this depended on specific situations. Cameroon had taken on board the Committee’s concerns regarding civilians being tried in military courts.
Regarding approvals of associations, silence led to tacit approval, which mitigated the concerns of the Committee. To combat violence in schools, decrees had been issued which established functional mechanisms to ensure an inclusive and safe educational environment which fostered learning. Concerning birth registration, there was a pilot project underway aimed at digitalising thousands of old registers and issuing digital statistics. Offices were established in hundreds of health facilities so that birth registration could be completed before each child left the facility.
There were clear procedures for the media in elections. All parties had received equal funding for candidacies, and under the Election Code, members of the electoral bodies were required to act with transparency and impartiality. Police acted in the same way with all political candidates regardless of their political orientation.
A law promoted bilingualism, and the National Commission for Bilingualism and Multiculturalism undertook awareness-raising activities, promoted peaceful harmony and discouraged hate speech. Numerous campaigns had been taken over the years, and visits had been conducted to decentralised authorities. Steps had been taken to embed the use of English in the public judicial system.
There were no linguistic minorities in Cameroon. English and French were both official languages, and English was even taking over in Cameroon. People who were lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex were not automatically persecuted; there were egregious cases.
Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions, including regarding the independence of the Electoral Commission; how political participation was ensured in Cameroon; asking for more information on political demonstrations which had been subject to repression and acts of torture; if the State was taking measures to ensure coexistence between all groups in Cameroon, including French and English speakers; if visits were permitted by independent bodies, including non-governmental organizations; and figures in which the death penalty was commuted.
Other questions asked how freedom of association was ensured; how indigenous communities were being protected in the State party; if trials would be automated to decrease their length; whether attorneys benefitted from immunity of arrests by the judiciary; figures on those who were victims of violence by security forces and the armed groups; what measures were in place to ensure that newborns born outside health facilities were also registered; and how the State was ensuring the registration of children who had never been registered or received a birth certificate.
An Expert said it was great news that the State party had ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said many rural children were not born in a hospital. A national bureau of civil registry had been created, which was present in nearly every canton, enabling the births of children to be recorded. When this was not done, there were local hearings where the mayor could record the births. Many local days had been organised to ensure that every child had birth registration.
Cameroon was a secular State with many co-existing religions and there were no examples of religious discrimination in the country. Generally, everyone in Cameroon spoke English as well as French. People viewed speaking English as an advantage; there was now a trend to speak English and French speakers viewed themselves as the minority. The information being bandied about was fake news. There was no stigmatisation in Cameroon against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. There were non-governmental organizations which visited places of detention. Talks had been held with Special Rapporteurs regarding visits to Cameroon.
Certain provisions were provided for those living in forests, and an entire legal arsenal had been established to protect indigenous populations living in Cameroon. Independence and impartiality in elections were guaranteed by the Electoral Code. No death penalty could be handed down without the President considering a pardon.
Closing Statements
EHETH SALOMON, Permanent Representative of Cameroon to the United Nations Office at Geneva and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the frank, constructive and respectful exchange. The dialogue had given Cameroon the opportunity to report on the efforts undertaken to ensure the implementation of the Covenant, as well as to identify areas where further efforts were required. The State party had taken note of the Committee’s suggestions which would be brought to the attention of the relevant national authorities and institutions. Cameroon remained committed to sincere cooperation with the Committee and with human rights mechanisms.
CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation for the constructive dialogue and appreciated efforts to address the Committee’s questions. The Committee welcomed Cameroon’s strengthening of the national human rights institutions and policies to combat gender-based violence, while further efforts were required around torture and ill treatment of detainees, the trial of civilians by military courts, and the inadequacy of reforms to promote bilingualism in public life, among other concerns. Mr. Soh thanked everyone who had made the dialogue possible.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CCPR26.013E