The Systemic Delay of Judicial Hearings and the Risk of Cruel Treatment in Angola
Osvaldo de Almeida is a human rights lawyer from Angola and a recipient of the REDRESS Innovative Lawyers Award. He works with Friends of Angola, an organisation dedicated to raising global awareness of the challenges facing the country and strengthening its civil society.
In this blog, Osvaldo examines how the systemic delays in judicial hearings in Angola undermine the right to a fair and timely trial. He highlights how these delays, particularly for individuals deprived of liberty, may heighten the risk of ill-treatment , and erode fundamental human rights protections.
The timely conduct of custody hearings and trial hearings is an essential component of due process in any democratic rule-of-law system. Custody hearings play a particularly important role in preventing cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. When justice is repeatedly delayed, the issue goes beyond administrative inefficiency — it becomes a matter that may affect fundamental rights.
In Angola, significant delays in court hearings are a recurring reality, particularly in first-instance courts. Sessions formally scheduled for 9:00 a.m. often begin only at midday, later in the afternoon, or in some cases do not take place at all.
Although frequently treated as a matter of internal organization, this practice raises serious constitutional and international concerns — especially when it involves individuals deprived of liberty or detained in the context of protests or political dissent.
This blog argues that systematic delays may violate the right to a fair and timely trial and, in certain circumstances, contribute to the risk of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment — practices that international law, including the United Nations Convention Against Torture, absolutely prohibits.
The Rights to a Prompt and Fair Trial
The Constitution of the Republic of Angola guarantees the right to a fair and prompt legal process, ensuring the rights of defense and adversarial proceedings (Article 72). The principle of human dignity, which forms the foundation of the Republic, guides the interpretation of the entire legal system (Article 1).
At the international level, Angola is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees every accused person the right to be tried “without undue delay.” The ICCPR also provides that anyone detained must be brought promptly before a judge and tried within a reasonable time or released.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has repeatedly affirmed that unjustified and systematic delays may, in themselves, constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial — particularly where the person concerned is deprived of liberty.
Therefore, recurring delays cannot be dismissed as mere administrative irregularities: they may represent a failure to comply with binding international obligations assumed by the Angolan State.
Deprivation of Liberty and the Risk of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
The situation becomes even more serious when examined in light of the UN Convention Against Torture, which Angola has also ratified.
The Convention requires States to prevent cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, even where conduct does not reach the threshold of torture.
It is true that the delay of a hearing, taken in isolation, does not constitute torture. However, custody hearings serve as a critical safeguard against torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. They provide an opportunity to assess any indications of treatment contrary to the Convention during the first hours and days of deprivation of liberty — the period when the risk of abuse is highest.
When delays in custody hearings or trial hearings become systematic and occur alongside circumstances such as:
a. prolonged periods of custody in inadequate conditions;
b. lack of clear information about the legal proceedings;
c. extended public exposure;
d. unnecessary use of handcuffs;
e. repeated adjournments without justification; and/or
f. poor detention conditions;
They may generate intense psychological suffering, prolonged anxiety, and a sense of institutional humiliation.
International law recognises that degrading treatment does not require physical violence. It is sufficient that state conduct humiliates the individual or seriously undermines their dignity. Repeated uncertainty, exhausting waiting periods, prolonged or indeterminate detention, and a sense of arbitrariness may cumulatively produce this effect.
In cases involving protesters or political dissidents, the undue prolongation of procedural uncertainty may operate as an indirect mechanism of intimidation or emotional exhaustion, creating conditions conducive to violations of international rights — including the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
The Impact on the Right to Defence
The right to defence is not limited to the formal presence of a lawyer. It requires adequate material conditions for the defence to be exercised effectively. Prolonged and unpredictable waiting periods undermine the lawyer’s concentration; strategic preparation; the emotional stability of the accused; and the clear understanding of judicial acts.
The fairness of proceedings depends not only on formal legality but also on the concrete conditions in which the trial takes place. An institutional environment marked by systemic disorganization may undermine the substance of a fair trial.
A Structural Failure
When delays cease to be occasional and become recurring, the problem must be understood as structural.
International responsibility of the State does not depend on deliberate intent. It is sufficient that practices exist which are incompatible with the obligations assumed by the State, including the duty to prevent situations that may result in inhuman or degrading treatment.
Judicial punctuality is not merely a matter of administrative efficiency — it is a concrete expression of respect for human dignity and for the psychological integrity of individuals in the custody of the State.
Final considerations
The normalisation of delays in criminal hearings in Angola cannot be viewed solely as an operational problem. From both a constitutional and international perspective, such practices may violate the right to be tried without undue delay; compromise the right to liberty and personal security; contribute, in certain circumstances, to situations of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; and weaken the principle of human dignity, which underpins the constitutional order.
Criminal justice should not be measured only by the content of judicial decisions, but also by the conditions under which the process unfolds. When institutional time becomes an instrument of exhaustion, uncertainty, and humiliation, the system risks ceasing to function as a guarantor of rights and instead becoming — even if unintentionally — a source of violation.
About the Innovative Lawyers Awards
REDRESS’s Innovative Lawyers Awards recognise the vital work of new and emerging anti-torture champions, expose them to a broader peer support network, provide financial support to pursue public interest litigation and to inspire other lawyers and practitioners. This support is made available through the United Against Torture Consortium, which is funded by the European Union. The contents of the Innovative Lawyers Awards blog series are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or REDRESS.
