254/02 : Mouvement des réfugiés mauritaniens au Sénégal pour la
defense des droits de l'Homme / Senegal
Summary of Facts
1. The Complainant alleges that on the eve of the demonstration by the refugees of Podor in
commemoration of the International Refugee Day, the Prefect of the town of Podor banned the said
demonstration.
2. The Complainant does not show whether he had complied with the necessary procedures to
obtain authorisation for the demonstration. He however points out that he had sent the programme of
the demonstration to the following institutions and persons:
3. African Commission; UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Commission for Assistance to
Returnees and Displaced Persons; Governor of Saint-Louis; Prefect of Podor; Deputy Prefect of Thille
Boubacar and the press. 3. The text of the decision of the Prefect of Podor banning the demonstration
th
which was scheduled to take place on Thursday 20 and Friday 21st June 2002 in the towns of
th
Madina Moussa, Diolly, Podor and Ngaolé was dated 19 June 2002, citing the need to keep law and
order as the reason for this action.
4. The submission of the Complainant includes the programme of the demonstration sent to the
th
above mentioned institutions and persons, the decision of the Prefect of Podor dated 19 June 2002
th
banning the demonstration scheduled to take place on Thursday 20 and Friday 21st June 2002 in
towns of Madina Moussa, Diolly, Podor and Ngaolé.
Complaint
5. The Complainant alleges that Senegal violated Articles 5, 9 and 11 of the African Charter.
Procedure
th
6. The communication was received at the Secretariat of the African Commission on 6 August 2002.
th
7. On 12 August 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission acknowledged receipt of the
communication and informed the Complainant that the complaint was registered and would be
nd
th
considered at the 32 Ordinary Session scheduled to take place in Banjul, The Gambia, from 17 to
31st October 2002.
nd
th
rd
8. At the 32 Ordinary Session held from 17 to 23 October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia, after
considering the communication, the African Commission decided to be seized with the said
communication.
th
9. On 30 October 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties of the
above-mentioned decision and asked them to provide it with more information on the admissibility of
the communication, in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter. It also sent a copy of the
communication to the Respondent State. It requested the parties to send their written observations to
the Secretariat within two months after notification of the decision.
rd
th
th
10. At its 33 Ordinary Session held from 15 to 29 May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African
Commission considered this communication and declared it inadmissible.
Law
Admissibility
11. The admissibility of the communications submitted under Article 55 of the African Charter is
governed by the conditions set out in Article 56 of the African Charter. The applicable provision in this
particular case is that of Article 56.5 which stipulates that: “communications….shall be considered if
they:
(5)…are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly
prolonged…”.
12. In the case under consideration, the Complainant alleges that on the eve of the demonstration for
the commemoration of the International Refugee Day, the Prefect of the town of Podor issued a ban of
the demonstration by Mauritanian refugees.
13. The Complainant filed the decision of the Prefect of Podor banning the demonstration scheduled
th
to take place on 20 and 21st June 2002 in the towns of Madina Moussa, Diolly, Podor and Ngaolé.
14. In the Complainant’s written observations, it is alleged that according to the information received,
the procedure applied in such a case by Conseil d’Etat would be unduly prolonged, but without
elaborating how.
15. In its response, the Respondent State refers to the provisions of Article 56 of the African Charter
and Rule 116 of its [sic]Rules of Procedure which provides for the exhaustion of local remedies as a
requirement for the African Commission to rule on the admissibility of communications.
16. The Respondent State also recalls that the guidelines for submission of communications provide
that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies have been exhausted.
rd
17. The representative of the Respondent State stated during the 33 Ordinary Session that the
Complainant had not undertaken any efforts to challenge the decision banning the demonstration.
18. She pointed out the decision complained of was an administrative measure against which the
Complainant could have taken legal action and obtained redress in the following two ways:
1.
Appeal to a higher administrative authority which consists of seizing the hierarchical authority
for abuse of authority, including the Governor, the Minister of Interior, the Prime Minister and,
finally, the President of the Republic in accordance with the Institutional Act No. 92-24 of
th
30 May 1992 relating to Conseil d’Etat as amended and Article 729 of the Code of Civil
Procedure;
2.
Administrative law action, through seizure of Conseil d’Etat cancelling the administrative
decision complained of for abuse of authority.
19. The representative of the Respondent State demonstrated that these local remedies existed but
that the Complainant had not utilised any of them. She further pointed out that in emergency cases,
the procedure of hour by hour interim order in an urgent case was also available to those seeking
justice. She therefore concluded that the Complainant had not exhausted local remedies.
20. In light of the above submissions, the African Commission notes that the Complainant did not
provide proof of attempting to exhaust the local remedies that were available to him.
Holding
For these reasons, the African Commission,
Declares the communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
rd
Taken at the 33 Ordinary Session in Niamey, Niger, May 2003.