AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
�J�I .l'-s"'"1!
African Conunission on Human & Peoples' Rights
®
31 Bijila Annex l.Byaut, Kombo North District,
UNIAO AFRICANA
Commission Africaine des Drofts de /'Hamme & des Peuples
Western Region,P. 0. Box 673, Banjul, TheGambia
Tel: (220) 4410505/ 4410506; Fax: (220) 4410504
E-mail: au-banjul®africa-union.a�· Web www.achprnrg
Communication 569/15
Digbeejaye Koonjul
v
The Republic of Mauritius
.Adopted by the
.A
frican Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
during the 6,4tll Ordinary Session from 14"' .April to 14"' May 1019
Shani El-Sheikh, .A.rob Republic o
fEgypt
Communication 569/15: Digbeejaye
Koonjul v. The Republic of Mauritius
Summary of the Complaint
1.
The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the
Secretariat) received a Complaint on 15 June 2015 from Mr Digbeejaye Koonjul
(the
Complainant).
The
Complaint
is
submitted
against
the
Republic
of
Mauritius, which is a State Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights (the African Charter). I
2.
The Complainant states that he has been convicted and sentenced to a jail term of
38 years, for the offence of murder under the Constitutional law of Mauritius. He
asserts that his conviction was in breach of Section 222 of the Mauritian Criminal
Code in relation to the penalty for murder.
3.
The Complainant submits that the Complaint is based on the fact that there had
been
a
serious
miscarriage
of justice
at
the
trial
and
appeal
hearing
of
the
Complainant, thereby breaching his fundamental human rights.
4.
The
Complainant
submits
that
he
was
initially
sentenced
to
30
years
imprisonment by the Court of Assises on 27 July 2007 for the offence of murder,
even
though
decision
to
substarttial
he
the
had
pleaded
Supreme
miscarriage
1
not
Court
of
guilty',
of
justice.
following
auritius
The
on
Director
which
he
basis
that
the
of
Public
appealed
there
Prosecution
the
was
a
cross
appealed. Apart from dismissing his appeal, and allowing the cross-appeal, the
Complainant avers that the Appellant Judges on 25 February 2010 also increased
his sentence to 38 years.
5.
The
Complainant
states
that
he
thereafter
on
14
March
2011
applied
to
the
Supreme Court for conditional leave to appear before the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council. The Complainant avers that the application was refused by
the Supreme Court of Mauritius, and submits that "the mathematical reasoning
of the Supreme Court together with the interrogatory answer at the end of the
judgement
leaves
the
clear
impression
that
the
court
against its own judgement instead of examining the
�
sitting
til'll'!$1
s1:�tr�,
' "°e.
.
@'' \
;·
i
1
I
The Republic of Mauritius ratified the African Charter on 19 June 199�,
.
��\
It.:
�
""
�
�
AU·UA
.
'
+
::;
,
.,,
,,,
.
, ...
0,,�
---=-1
"'
·
'(/
"
'<�f7Dfs¥t;lf'-'
on
appeal
'ch ought to be
.
ee'@),.
submitted for determination by the Judicial Commi
1
was
6.
The Complainant states
that he
thereafter
in July
2012 applied
directly
to
the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by way of special leave on the ground
that there had
been a serious miscarriage of justice. The Complainant submits
that his appeal to the Privy Council was rejected, and that he thus has no means
to proceed
with
such an application, hence
the need
to approach
the
African
Commission.
7.
The first ground for stating that there was a miscarriage of justice, according to
the
Complainant
is
that
the
period
that
he
spent
in
remand
prior
to
his
conviction was not subtracted from his sentence, as was the case for one of his
co-accused.
8.
The Complainant further avers that the court erred in disallowing the defence
from calling witnesses to testify on his behalf pursuanMo Section 10)(2)(e) of the
Constitution, thereby depriving him of a fair trial. He further asserts that he was
not
allowed
allegedly
to
tender
a
masterminded
prosecution
the
witness,
murder,
who
w.hich
was
would
a
co-accused
have
enabled
who
the
Complainant to corroborate his defe
ce of <lure s. In addition he was prevented
from adducing an
to substantiate what he calls 'trial
evidentiary
ba is
by the
press', which in fact refers to the overwhelming,. adverse publicity generated by
the case. He alleges that the adverse publicity made it impossible for him to have
a fair trial.
9.
The Complainant further alleges that the court refused to allow the defence to
proceed with the opening speech and that the jury then reached conclusions on
facts not within their purview.
10. In
addition,
the
Complainant
avers
that
the
court
allowed
hearsay
evidence
submitted by the prosecuting counsel, that the court misdirected the jury in its
summary of the defence of duress, and that the Court of Appeal increased the
Complainant's sentence on erroneous premises.
11. The
Complainant
also
alleges
that
during
the
trial
the
interpreters,
who
translated the proceedings from English to Creole, translated in low tones such
that the counsels and the judge could not hear the translations. He further alleges
, biba;;;,>;.
that the translations were not digitally recorded, and as such, they coul
�v>
&�,:
sEtRfrA..:,,
"llr;\.
0
·
;
counter-checked
by
the
appellate
court.
Additionally,
the
Comp!
·f
a'n
�
t
1;
i
2
'fr.
.r.
'
I'!:-,
AU·UA
;<:> J
I
\
�:�""O'·'",,/
·�GE�';;,-
alleges that the judge's secretary and the Chief Court Officers acted as official
interpreters, which action breached section 31 of the Court's Act. He concluded
that these vitiated the trial process and resulted in a breach of his constitutional
right to the protection of the Jaw and due process.
12. He submits that he has exhausted all local remedies.
Articles alleged to have been violated
13. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent State has violated Articles 2, 3, 5
and 7 of the African Charter.
Prayers
14. TI1e Complainant seeks the following:
(a) A reversal of the alleged miscarriage of justice; and
(b) A
review
of
all
the
circumstances
surrounding
his
alleged
trial
and
sentence.
Procedure
15. The Secretariat received the
omplaint by post on
acknowledged receipt and informed the Complaj
18' June 2015. The Secretariat
ant that the Complaint would
be tabled before the Commission for consideration.
16. The
Commission
was
seized
of
the
Communication
during
its
18th
Extra
ordinary Session held from 29 July to 07 August 2015, and communicated the
decision to be seized
requeste
17. The
to the Parties on 26 August 2015.
The Complainant was
to submit on admissibility within two months.
Complainant's
Commission and
submissions
on
admissibility
were
received
at
the
transmitted to the Respondent State on 19 October 2015. The
Complainant submitted
revised
submissions
on
26
October 2015,
which
were
transmitted to the Respondent State on 28 October 2015.
18. The Respondent State submitted on the admissibility of the Communication on
30 Novembe
�
�
�
1:"cCRfTA.1;\oii}'
�submissions were transmitted to the Complainant on
'°fo
0
0
f
06 June 20
�
'i.
< "
·
'-,
�
� •
.
"
'
...;.
�
AU·UA
'
<i,,
t.'
(f
��(�4.t)?�Al!i£0��':I
"'�s�
3
19. On 05 July 2016 the Complainant requested for an extension in submitting his
observations on the admissibility submissions of the Respondent State, a request
which was repeated on 24 July 2016.
20. On 25 July 2016 the Secretariat informed both Parties that the Commission had
delayed
consideration
of
the
Communication
during
its
20th
Extra-Ordinary
Session, pending the observations of the Complainant on the submissions of the
Respondent State.
21. On 27 July 2016 the Secretariat requested for a clarificatioi;i from the Complainant
in relation to the request for an extension.
22. From the 59th Ordinary Session
to the 60th Ordinary Session, the Commission
deferred consideration of the Communication.
23. On 25 September 2017 the Parties were informed that the Comp ainant had been
granted an extension of thirty (30) days within which
to make any additional
submissions.
24. The Commission deferred
consideration of the Communication during
its 61''
Ordinary Session.
25. 0
29
November
2017
the
Res�ondent
State
sent
a
Note
Verbale
Ref:
541/ AA/POL/19 requesting to be provided with the additional submissions of
the Complainant.
26. On 20 Deceml5er 2017 the Secretariat informed the Parties that the timeline for
submission
of
the
Complainant's
additional
observations
on
the
State's
submissions on admissibility had expired and that no further submissions had
been received.
27. From
the
23,ct
Extra-Ordinary
Session
to
the
Admissibility
The Complainant's Submissions on Admissibility
4
251h
Extra-Ordinary
Session
the
28. The
Complainant
Human
and
submits
that
"in
Peoples'
Rights
(the
Complainant
is
now
required
to
admissibility
of
a
August
the
2015
Commission)
present
Communication
dated
African
seized
this
Commission
on
matter
and
the
the
arguments
and
evidence
on
August
2015
pursuant
to
26th
Rule
105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission". The Complainant submits
that all domestic remedies have been exhausted.
29. The Complainant reiterates the submissions in relation to the Complaint as set
out above, and also provided further informatio
about the Complaint, which
has subsequently been incorporated above. The Complainant further submitted
questions for determination by the Commissi
n related to whether there was an
unfair trial and a substantial miscarriage ofjustice.2
30. Under the heading, "The Co
plainant' s Submission" the Complainant submits
that the Supreme Court and'tfie Judicial l:;:ommittee of the
errors when it successively refu e
further submits
stage,
as
a
that from
result.
of
the
the Complainant's appeal.,Jbe Complainant
outse
adverse
rivy Council fell into
and
of th
case,
prejudicial
Complainant's right-to a fair trial pursuan
as
early as
publicity
the investigative
by
the
press,
the
to Secti.£Jl 10 of the Constitution of
the Republic of. Mauritius could not have be n possible. Furthermore, due to all
'\
the facts set o
tin this Complaint which amount to breaches of human rights, the
Cqmplainant submits
Com
that there has
een a serious miscarriage of justice. The
lainant further refers to the dack of.parity of treatment between the Victim
and tfie co-accused regarding consideration of time spent on remand.
31. The Complainant requests the Commission to make a determination that there
had been a miscarriage o
justice and declare the co
a nullity, as well as
':,\Ult ON l<LJ ..4\,i"'D
The R:,::.::: :.:.:::::�::•A::�.::7li;,;�s
®')
\
�
�
\
AU·UA
�
:.r
t,
1'
2
The questions submitted for determination by the Commission are as fol
'wi;.;..,\'� ·
he Presiding Judge was
"Z_
�
Ef DES\>\:.
wrong to direct the defence witness,
resulting in
an
unfair trial;
b) whetherthl!-
residing Judge ought to warn
defence witness only when incriminating questions were put to him and not otherwise; c) whether the Presiding
Judge
wrongly
exercised
his
discretion
in
refusing
to
order the
prosecution
to
tender
a
particular
prosecution
witness; d) whether the prosecution in not calling a particular witness deprived the Victim of a fair trial; e) whether
the Presiding judge caused confusion in the minds of the jury, thereby rendering the verdict unsafe; and f) whether
the
sentence
imposed
and
thereafter
increased
breaches
treatment.
5
the
Complainant's
right to
protection
from
inhuman
32. The
Respondent
State
submits
that
it
is
an
established
principle
that
a
Communication must comply with all the conditions laid down under Article 56
of the African Charter for it to be admissible. The Respondent State avers that the
Complainant has failed to comply with Articles 56(2) and 56(5) of the African
Charter.
33. In relation to Article 56(2), the Respondent State submits that compatibility with
the African Charter entails that a Communication should prove prima facie case of
violation
of specified
Articles,
failing
there
whic
can
be
no
Communication
before the Commission. The State further cit s the Commission's jurisprudence
in the
case
Samuel
of
T.
Muzerengwa and
110
Others
(Represented by Zimbabwe
Lawyers for Human Rigltts) v Zimbabuie, in which the Commission held that prima
facie
violation
of
presented
in
occurred.
The
human
the
the
provisions
Complaint
Complaint
rights
violation
show
should
has
said
is
that
be
to
a
one
occurred
if
have
occ
human
tnat
not
rred
rights
compels
"where
violation
the
contradicted
the
has
likely
conclusion
or
facts
that
rebutted
by
a
the
Respondent State."3
34. The
Respondent
references
to
State
Articles
submits.
2,
3,
that
while
7-,
does
5 and
it
the
Complainant
not substantiate
made
how
general
the
Articles
referred to have been violated. The State avers that the contents of the Complaint
is
limited
to
mere
allegations
aimed
at
attacking
the
intellectual
and
moral
integrity of-the Mauritian Courts, and materially fails to show how human rights
violations nave occurred.
35. The
Respondent
State
in
addition
avers
that
the
Complainant
is
using
the
Commission to re-litigate a matter which came to a rest in July 2012 when the
Judicial
Committee
of
the
Privy
Council
application
for
sr.ecial
leave.
content
the
present
Communication
of
The
refused
Respondent
is
to
State
similar
hear
the
further
to
that
Complainant's
submits
placed
that
the
before
the
Supreme Court of Mauritius in an appeal lodged by the Complainant as well as
in the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Supreme Court
held
that
refused.
there
The
was
no
merit
in
Respondent further
the
application
submits
that the
and
leave
was
accordingly
Communication,
b).;
.
R
3
Communication 306/05 - Samuel T. Muzerengwa and 110 Others (Represented by Zimbabwe Lawye
�
�.
1>-IJ'
,...
6
E
ui:./
'b..
-,
__.,
,
;;. '
�
·
�
tt
"
,1
'I'
,
<.;
�
'
.1:s
�
'v
�
/pr
Rights) v Zimbabwe (2011) ACHPR para 56.
Ull1'•oo
x.o,'itlAP
¥-fJ·
")
{,i
·�
.J.
";'
·'v"
(
"
(l"·
"'iss>tl� :,,�P�",..,,r�,.;.,"/'
"-....._lff����\--/
upon the Commission to look into a matter that has already been thrashed out
before the Supreme Court of Mauritius and the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, amounts to an abuse of process.
36. The
Respondent
State
therefore
submits
that
the
Complainant
has
failed
to
comply with the requirements of Article 56(2) of the African Charter.
requires that a Communication should be considered if it is sent
37. Article 56(5)
after exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure
is prolonged. The Respondent State submi
the
Protection
of Human
Rights
in this regar
Act in 19
8
thereby
that Mauritius enacted
establishing
a National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC), having as 'ts main objective the protection
and promotion of human
rights.
38. The Respondent State submits that the Complamant has an avenue under Section
4A of the Act to seek redress for the alleged human rights violations through
forwarding his grievances to the NHRC, who would conduct an inquiry as to
whether
there
is
sufficient fresh and
compelling evidence
and
will
thereafter
refer the matter to-the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Respondent State submits
that a failure by the Complainant to avail himself of this local remedy is a breach
of Article 56(5
39. The
of the African Charter.
Respondent
tate
additionally
reiterates
the
principle
established
by
the
Commission that the rationale for exhaustion of local remedies is to give the State
an
opportunity
to
remedy
tlie
situation
through
its
own
system,
before
the
matter is taken up by an international body. The Respondent State further refers
to the test laid down by the Commission in [aioara v The Gambia in which it held
that local remedies must be available, effective and efficient. The State submits
that
the
remedy
under
Article
4A
meets
all
of
these
criteria
as
there
is
no
impediment for the Complainant or his representative to apply to the NHRC and
if the NHRC is of the view that there is sufficient fresh and compelling evidence,
the
matter
will
be
referred
to
the
Court
of Criminal
Appeal
on
the
issue
of
therefore submits that the Communication has failed
to
conviction.
40. The Respondent State
satisfy
Articl
and
O
�'+:�·"\
inadmissi
56(5)
of
the
s 't1
...
...w:i9
G,r,., '
1
�
-.
.
l
�
'le
c
J
�i�
.., ,...,
� !'
.;:,
·
�
?'
u,
.
�
....
¥'�-�
.J
�
,.
•h.
� ,ff_ ·
"'lt'..f,s51Qi,\ !>,
�
0 )'
��11,()\t�,,
"'·--
......
I
7
African
Charter
and
must
be
ruled
Commission's Analysis on Admissibility
41. Article 56 of the African Charter outlines seven (7) conditions which must all be
met for a Communication to be declared admissible. Failure to comply with one
or several of these conditions renders the Communication inadmissible.
42. The Commission notes that when the Complainant was requested to submit on
the admissibility of the Communication, he only made observations with regards
to Article 56(5) of the African Charter, and des�te being given the opportunity to
submit
additional
observations
on
the
admissibility
su
missions
of the
State,
refrained from doing so. The Commission in its jurisprudence has held that in
such cases it will still examine the admissibility of a Communication in respect of
each
condition
based
on
the
information.4
available
Accordingly,
the
Commission undertakes the following analysis on admissibility on the basis of
the
Respondent
State
and
Complainant's
submissions
on
,admissibility
in
addition to information relevant to the admissibility of the case, as provided in
the original Complaint.
43. In
relation
to
the
requirement in Article
6(.J.)
of
the
African
Charter,
which
provides that Communications should
indicate their authors even
if the
requests
notes
the
anonymity,
the
Commission
that
the
identity
and
latter
contact
details of the Complainant is indicated in the Communication, and accordingly
finds that the Communication satisfies Article 56(1) of the African Charter.
44. In accordance wiili Article 56(2) of the African Charter, the Communication must
show a p ima fade cases and must be compatible with the AU Constitutive Act
and the African Charter. The Respondent State submits that the Complainant has
failed
to
comply
Complainant
does
violated
thus
and
with
not
the
requirements
substantiate
materially
fails
how
of
the
to show
Article
Articles
how
human
56(2),
in
referred
that
to
1)
have
the
been
rights violations have
occurred; 2) the contents of the Complaint is limited to mere allegations
· .
e
0
at,,0,,
��,:.
l$
• Communication 304/05 - FIDH and others v Senegal (2006) ACHPR para 38; Communication 3
j,J; -
Economic
lm
Rights and Accountability Project
(SERAP)
v Nigeria
(2010)
ACHPR
para
43;
and
284/03 - Zimbabwe Lawyers/or Human Rights & Associated Newspapers o
f Zimbabwe v Zimbabwe (
..,
r..,
\
�
"'
\
\ c'.
�
i ;,"</ Ji�
. �-,';
� / ;? <:I.. ..,
!!2J ""..
,:.�<-"' $
para 8 1 ; and Communication 299/05 - Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (2006) ACHPR para. 44; Comm�(o�
328/06 - Front/or the Liberation o
f the State o/Cabinda v Republic o
f Angola (2013) ACHPR para. 38.
' See Communication 333/06 - Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network & Others v.
para 5 1 .
8
-=--· -
Tanzania (20 I 0) ACHPR,
attacking the intellectual and moral integrity of the Mauritian Courts; and 3) the
Complainant is using the Commission as a Court of Appeal for a matter which
had been settled at the national level.
45. The Complainant submits that Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the African Charter have
been violated.
The
Complainant does
Commission
disagrees with
not substantiate
how
the
the
Respondent State
Articles
have
that the
been violated.
The
Commission is of the view that the Complainant in paragraphs 7 to 10 above
clearly sets out the alleged irregularities in the process before the national courts
which he avers violated the abovementioned rights, including the allegations of
the Courts disallowing the Complainant from calling a witness, allowing hearsay
evidence
and
relation
to
the
the
Communication
dissimilar
State's
treatment
secon
etween
objection,
'the
must show a prima 'facie case.
jurisprudence of the
his
and
similar
cases.
In
Commission
notes
that
the
The
case
Respondent Stat
Commission which held that a prirna
refers
to
facie violation has
occurred "where the facts presented in the Complaint show that a human rights
violation
has
conclusion
likely
that
occurred.
a human
The Complaint should
rights
violation
has
be
occurred
one
that compels
the
if not contradicted
or
rebutted by the Respondent State".
46. As noted above, the Cornmissio
as held that the Complainant has presented
facts which would likely amount to a human rights violation. The State did not
submit any contradictory evidence to sh
w that the facts presented were false.
Thus the challenge by the State that these are mere allegations does not mean
that a prima facie case has not been established. Complainants are expected at the
merits stage of the Communication to provide full submissions and evidence on
the alleged violations to
rove their case on a balance of probabilities. While not
making any determination on violations, the Commission thus finds that a prima
Jacie case has been established. Additionally, the State has not substantiated its
submission that the Complaint is "aimed at attacking the intellectual and moral
integrity
of
the
Mauritian
Courts",
and
the
Commission
does
not
find
any
is
using
the
suggestion to this effect in the Communication.
47. The
third
objection
raised
by
the
State
is
that
the
Complainant
powers
to
overrule
the
decisions
mandate
of ensuring
compliance
African
Charter
its
in
notes
that
specified
areas
which
paragraph
29
above,
the
and
and
Complainant
it
wants
that
courts
by a State Party,
interpretation
Commission
the
of national
the
some
but simply
with
the
application
of
in
its
these
provisions
the
areas
its
of the
law" .6
admissibility
Commission
of
discharges
The
submissions
to
consider,
set
do
not
within
fall
out
in
the
jurisdiction of the Commission and would indeed amount to an appeal of the
decision of the national Courts. However, to the extent that the alleged violations
relate to rights protected under the African Charter, namely, those that relate to
the right to a fair trial, equality before the law and non-discrimination, they do
fall within the rationne maieriae jurisdiction of
48. Further, the Respondent State is a State Party to the African Charter, accordingly
the
Communication
falls
within
rationae
the
personae
jurisdiction
of
the
Commission. The Commission has rationae temporis jurisdiction, since the alleged
violations took place after the ratification of the Charter by the Respondent State
in 1992. The Commission finds that the Communication satisfies Article 56(2) of
the African Charter.
49. Article
56(3)
of
the
African
Harter
considered if they are not written
in
provides
that
Communications
shall
be
disparaging or insulting language directed
at the State concerned and its institutions or to the Organization of African Unity
[now African
Union].
The
Respondent State
had
not
raised
any
challenge
in
relation to this requirement. The <Commission has, in reading the Complaint, not
come
across
anything
:wfiidi
would
amount
to
disparaging
or
insulting
language. "The Commission therefore finds that the requirements of Article 56(3)
have been met.
50. In
relation
to
Article
56(4)
of
the
African
Charter,
which
requires
that
the
Communication {IIUSt not be based exclusively on news disseminated through
the
mass
media,
the
Respondent
State
has
not
raised
any
challenge.
The
Commission notes that the Complaint is submitted by the Victim himself and is
10
51. Article 56(5) requires that Communications be submitted after exhausting local
remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged.
While the Complainant submits that he has exhausted all domestic remedies, the
Respondent State
submits
requirement.
State
The
that
the
submits
Complainant
that
the
had
not complied
Complainant
has
an
with
avenue
this
under
Section 4A of the Protection of Human Rights Act of 1998 to seek redress for the
alleged human rights violations through forwarding his grievances to the NHRC,
who
would
conduct
an
inquiry
as
to
whethe
the e
is
sufficient
fresh
and
compelling evidence and will thereafter ref r tlie matter to the Court of Criminal
Appeal. The Respondent State submits that a f ilure by the Complainant to avail
himself of this local remedy is a breath of"A tide 56(q) of tfie African Charter.
those
remedies
jurisdictions
exhausted."
remedies
which
and
The
there
are
"ordinary
remedies· of
normally
accessible
t,
Commission
is
no
dutx
has
on
held
tlie
people
comm
seeking
n
to
commissions such as a national human nglrls insti
that
justice"
that 'rn exhausting
Cornplainan
law
exist
have
to
in
be
ordinary
domestic
cases
national
submit
to
tion (NHRI), even if they can
grant remedies, as they are "ll.,Oll;judicial in titutions", and Complainants only
have to exhaust judicial remedies.f For this reason the Commission holds that the
Respondent State's objection in this regard fails,
53. In additiori: the Complainant avers that he has appealed to both the Supreme
Court of Mauritius as well as ·
e Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and
that his appeals in both cases were dismissed. The Respondent State does not
provide any evidence of further judicial remedies which should be exhausted.
The
Commission
thus
finds
that
the
Complainan
·�xhausted
domestic
��ot"UM�\Ai,;,
judicial remedies and thus complies with Artie} 1il\;;l>�''"'" ''''.
:.,
rrl· �
�
'\
1
7
Communication
242/01
, Interights,
Institute for Human
Rights
Mauritanienne des Droits de /'Homme v Mauritania (2004) ACHPR para
•
}�t
'.
v. United Republic of Tanzania, App. No. 003/2015, Judgment of 28 Sep1em
8
Africa,
and Association
"F!l�lfy: .� mo Onyachi and Others
erZif17, para 56.
Communication 2 2 1 / 9 8 , Alfred B. Cudjoe v. Ghana (1999) ACHPR para 14; Communication 375/09, Priscilla
Njeri Echaria (represented by Federation o
f Women Lawyers, Kenya and International Center for the Protection o
f Human
Rights) v. Kenya (2011) ACHPR para 56. African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v, Republic of
Kenya,
App.
No.
006/2012,
26
May
2017,
para
97;
ACHPR para 42.
11
Communication
268/03
, Ilesanmi v Nigeria
(2005)
54. Article 56(6) requires that a Complaint must be "submitted within a reasonable
period
from
the
Commission
is
time
local
seized
of
remedies
the
are
matter".
exhausted
Neither
or
the
from
the
date
the
Complainant
nor
the
Respondent State had submitted arguments on this provision. The Charter does
not define what constitutes 'a reasonable period', and the Commission adopts the
approach that 'each case must be treated on its own merit'.? In the present case
the Complainant in July 2012 applied directly to the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council and while the Complainant does not state at which time his appeal
to
the
Privy
Council
was
rejected,
it
appears
from
the
submissions
of
the
Respondent State in paragraph 35 above tliat the rejection was also in July 2012.
The
Complainant
states
that
his
Complaint
was
thereafter
submitted
to
the
"(w)here
there
Commission in June 2015.
55. In
Michael
good
and
Majuru
v Zimbabwe,
compelling
Complaint
for
Complaint
to
consideration
ensure
Documentation
reason
fairness
Centre v
the
Commission
why
a
Complainant
on
time,
and
justice" .10
udan11
and Dr.
ruled
the
that,
could not submit his/her
eommission
In
is
the
cases
may
of
examine
the
Darfur Relief and
Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim (represented by
REDRESS) v. Sudan.I? the Commission held that two years and five months, and
fifteen months respectively, did not comply with Article 56(6), as "no sufficient
reason [were] given as to why th
a reasonable period".
, the
In light of its jurisprudence, and
as no justification was
plainant for the-three year delay between July 2012 and June
given by the Co
201
Communication could not be submitted within
ommission
within a reasonable
finds
that the
time anc!.4:hus
Complaint in
this
case
is
not submitted
does not meet the requirements of Article
56(6).
Article 56(7) of the Charter, the Commission does not find evidence
which
indicates
that the
brought before, o
State
did
not
issues
settled
provide
any
by
and
any
claims
other
contrary
in
the
Communication
international
argument.
forum.
The
Accordingly,
finds that Article 56(7) of the African Charter has been satisfi
have
been
Respondent
�mission
,p•':;��:�'.,\'�,.�
�
...
?)-,
<:,
�
!
�
i
)
:·;.,
; , � �� i )}
�
1;
'v
o/it.""
S,o\l AFR!Ct.\� (<.-;s
' C o m m u n i c a t i o n 308/05 -Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) ACHPR para 109.
10
11
12
Ibid, Para 109.
Ibid, Para 80.
Ibid, Para 77.
12
'<::/"°''"'"''s:Y
.
I
57. For the reasons set out above, the Commission finds that Article 56 (1), (2), (3),
(4), (5) and (7) have been met, but that the Complainant has failed to meet the
criteria for Article 56(6).
Commission's Decision on Admissibility
58. In view of the above, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights:
1.
Declares the Communication inadmissible for failure to comply with Article
56(6) of the African Charter;
11.
and
Notifies its decision to the Parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of its
Rules of Procedure.
Done in Sharm el Sheikh, The Arab Republic of Egypt, during tlie 64th Ordinary
Session of the African Commissio
on Human and
May 2019.
13