162/97 : Mouvement des réfugiés mauritaniens au Sénégal / Senegal
Summary of Facts
th
th
1. The Complainant alleges that during the operations carried out from 16 -29 October 1996 in the
region of Podor, Mauritanian refugees established there were the main targets of the Senegalese
security forces. Refugees were reportedly arrested and subjected to all sorts of humiliating treatment
during identity checks. The green card the Senegalese State had issued to them were allegedly not
regarded as valid by the security forces who considered them expired.
2. The Complainant further alleges that a group of individuals described as Mauritanian refugees
were arrested by the Senegalese gendarmerie in Mboumba and on the Island of Morphil in October
1996.
3. The communication finally alleges that these Mauritanian refugees are still being held at the
Central Prison in Saint Louis, whilst Senegalese nationals arrested together with them have been set
free.
th
4. In a Note verbale dated 24 July 1997, addressed to the Secretariat of the Commission, the
Senegalese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriate Senegalese maintains that since the month of
December 1995, when the United Nations High Commission for Refugees stopped distributing food,
the majority of Mauritanian refugees voluntarily returned to Mauritania and those who remained are
moving about freely, that they are shuttling between Rosso/Senegal and Rosso/Mauritania trying to
reach an agreement with the Waly of Trarza in order to arrange for their final repatriation. The Ministry
of Foreign Affairs insists that, in spite of the fact the refugees do not carry green cards they are
nevertheless free to go about their business on both sides of the common border.
5. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also claims that the following four Mauritanian refugees: Samba
Mbare, Alassane Bodia, Oumar Bodia and Balla Samba arrested by the Senegalese gendarmerie for
allegedly taking part in the murder of an officer of the Mauritanian gendarmerie, were set free for lack
of evidence. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs therefore argues that the communication should be
declared inadmissible on the grounds that the allegations it contains are unfounded.
6. In reaction to the arguments of the Defendant State, the Complainant reiterated the facts alleged
and rejected the Senegalese government's claim that the refugees voluntarily returned to their home
country. According to the Complainant, the refugees decided to return not individually but as a group
and only after obtaining assurances about their security and reintegration into Mauritanian society.
7. The Complainant claims that those refugees who left for Mauritania returned to Senegal because
of threats they faced from Mauritanian authorities, the lack of assistance and the undisguised
indifference of Mauritarians concerning their situation. The Complainant reiterates that the refugees
continue to be handicapped by the fact that they do not possess green cards. The lack of this
document prevents them for example from applying for employment within the Senegalese civil
service.
8. The communication, however, does not indicate the provisions of the African Charter of Human
and Peoples' Rights the Defendant State may have violated.
Procedure
th
9. The communication was received by the Secretariat on 9 January 1997.
th
10. On 16 January 1997, the Secretariat informed the Defendant State by Note Verbale about the
substance of the communication. On the same day, it wrote to the Complainant requesting it to state
th
whether the information contained in its letter of 4 November 1996 was to be considered as a
communication under the terms of Article 55 of the Charter.
11. On 21st January 1997, the Complainant replied in the affirmative to the question asked by the
Secretariat.
th
12. On 27 February 1997, the Secretariat informed the Complainant that its complaint had been
recorded under number 162/97 and that it would be submitted to the Commission for a decision on its
admissibility at the 21st Ordinary Session scheduled for April 1997.
13. On the same day, a Note Verbale was addressed to the Defendant, informing it that the
communication had been recorded and requesting it to submit its views about its admissibility.
th
14. On 19 March 1997, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale emanating from the Senegalese
th
High Commission in The Gambia, acknowledging receipt of its note of 16 January 1997 and
informing it that the dossier had been referred to the competent Senegalese authorities.
15. At the 21st Session, the communication was submitted to the Commission which decided to
nd
postpone consideration of its admissibility until the 22 Session to be held in November 1997.
th
16. On 13 June 1997, the Secretariat addressed a Note Verbale to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal, informing it of the Commission's decision and requesting it to send its government's
observations and arguments concerning this matter.
th
17. On 24 July 1997, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Senegal containing the observations and arguments of its government on this matter.
th
18. On 25 July 1997, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant sending it a copy of the Defendant's
th
reply and requesting its own response. This response was received by the Secretariat on 6 October
1997.
nd
nd
th
19. At the 22 Session held from 2 -11 November 1997, the Commission reached a decision on
the question of admissibility.
Law
Admissibility
20. The Commission recalls that under the terms of the provisions of Article 56 par. 5,
communications shall be considered by the Commission if they "are sent after exhausting local
remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged".
21. In this case, it should be noted that the Complainant avoids saying that it has not used the
remedies supposed to be available to it under the legal system of the Defendant State. Further, it
simply presents facts which, prima facie, do not show that the Senegalese State may be responsible.
22. Further, the Complainant does not mention the provisions of the Charter which the Senegalese
State may have violated.
Holding
For the above reasons, the Commission declares the communication inadmissible.
Decision taken at the 22
nd
th
Session, Banjul (The Gambia), 11 November 1997.