304/05 : FIDH, Organisation nationale des droits de l'Homme (ONDH)
and Rencontre africaine pour la défence des droits de l'Homme
(RADDHO) / Senegal
Summary of Facts
nd
1. The Secretariat of the African Commission received a communication on 2 May 2005 from the
above NGOs, which was submitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 55 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Charter).
1
2. The communication is submitted against the Republic of Senegal (State Party to the African
Charter and hereinafter referred to as Senegal) and alleges that legislation enacted by the
Government of Senegal violates the Government’s obligations under the African Charter.
th
3. On 7 January 2005, the Senegalese Parliament adopted the “Ezzan” law. In Article 1, this law
grants a complete amnesty for all crimes committed, in Senegal and abroad, relating to the general or
st
st
local elections or committed with political motivations between 1 January 1983 and 31 December
2004, whether the authors have been judged or not.
th
4. Article 2 of the law was found unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 12 February 2005
and grants a similar amnesty for all crimes committed in relation to the death of Mr Babacar Seye,
judge of the Constitutional Court.
Complaint
5. The communication alleges that the adoption of the Ezzan law violates Article 7.1(a)) of the African
Charter.
6. The Complainants request that the African Commission examine the effects of this legislation and
determine whether it is in conformity with the obligations assumed by the State under the [African]
Charter.
Procedure
7. The Secretariat registered the complaint as communication 304/05-FIDH, Organisation nationale
des droits de l’Homme (ONDH) and Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l’Homme
th
(RADDHO)/Senegal. By letter ACHPR/COMM/304/05/SEN/IH of 4 October 2005, the Secretariat of
the African Commission acknowledged receipt of the communication to the complainants and stated
that it would be put on the African Commission’s agenda for prima facieconsideration at its
th
st
th
38 Ordinary Session, scheduled from 21 November to 5 December 2005 in Banjul, The Gambia.
th
st
th
8. At its 38 Ordinary Session held from 21 November to 5 December 2005, in Banjul, The
Gambia, the African Commission considered the communication and decided to be seized thereof.
th
9. By letter ACHPR/COMM/304/05/SEN/IH of 15 December 2005, the [African] Commission kindly
asked the parties if they could forward their arguments on admissibility in accordance with Article 56 of
the African Charter within three (3) months from the date of this notification.
th
10. By letter ACHPR/COMM/304/05/SEN/IH of April 4 the Secretariat of the [African] Commission
th
reminded the parties its letter of the 15 of December and kindly asked the parties to submit their
arguments on the admissibility.
th
11. On the 10 April 2006, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Respondent State’s
correspondence transmitting its arguments on admissibility of communication 304/05 FIDH et al.
against the State of Senegal.
th
th
th
12. At its 39 Ordinary Session which was held from 11 to 25 May 2006 in Banjul, The Gambia,
the African Commission considered communication 304/05 FIDH and others against the State of
th
Senegal and intended to take a decision on the admissibility of the complaint at its 40 Ordinary
Session so as to allow the Complainants time to submit their comments on admissibility.
th
13. By letter dated 17 July 2006, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission informed the parties of
th
this decision of the 39 Session and requested the Complainants to convey their comments on the
th
admissibility of this communication not later than the 30 September 2006, to enable the commission
th
th
make a pronouncement thereon during its 40 Ordinary Session scheduled for the 15 to
th
29 November 2006.
th
14. On the 10 October 2006, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission received the comments
from the Complainants on the admissibility of communication 304/05.
Law
Admissibility
Arguments of the Complainants
15. The FIDH and its member organisations in Senegal, in their request to institute proceedings,
claim that their communication is being brought against a State Party to the African Charter by NGOs
which have Observer Status with the African Commission and that it is alleging the violation of a
provision of the [African] Charter, specifically Article 7.1 which stipulates that:
“Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This right includes:
The right to appeal to the competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as
recognised and guaranteed by Conventions, Laws, Regulations and Customs in force.”
16. The Complainants also claim that local remedies have been exhausted since the Constitutional
Council which had been seized by some Members of the National Assembly had declared that the
Law in question was in conformity with the Constitution with the exception of Article 2 which had been
ruled unconstitutional by the Council. The complainants recall that under the terms of the Senegalese
Constitution, the decision of the Constitutional Council is “the last recourse”.
17. The Complainants further specify that their challenge of the law in question has not been brought
before any other international judicial or quasi-judicial body.
Arguments of the State
18. The [Respondent] State claims first of all that its statement of defense on admissibility submitted
after the three months deadline extension granted by the [African] Commission is admissible so long
as the [African] Commission has not arrived at a decision on admissibility, especially where the Rules
of Procedure of the [African] Commission do not provide for any sanction of a procedural nature in
case of late submission of a statement.
19. The [Respondent] State then emphasizes that a communication submitted in accordance with the
provisions of Article 55of the [African] Charter should be based on verified facts that have caused
damage, with real identifiable victims thereby making possible the exhaustion of local remedies. As far
as the State is concerned, the communication submitted by the Complainants is based on potential,
even hypothetical violations since neither the authors of the communication, nor the Members of
Parliament who had brought the case before the Constitutional Council were victims and that their
action could hardly be interpreted as an attempt to exhaust local remedies.
20. The Senegalese State is also of the view that the communication is incompatible with the
[African] Charter in that the complainants made reference either to cases which have been
conclusively dealt with by the law courts, or to events which, having taken place in 1993, fell under the
hammer of the decennial prescription well before the promulgation of the law being challenged.
21. According to the [Respondent] State which, for this purpose, is basing its argument on the
th
decision of the Constitutional Council on case No. 1-C-2005 of 12 February 2005, the provisions of
th
the Law No. 2005-05 of 17 February 2005 are clear, without ambiguity and do not at all intend to
prohibit recourse to the competent courts. As far as the [Respondent] State is concerned, by seizing
the [African] Commission, the Complainants have no other intention than to have the [African]
Commission interpret the provisions of a domestic law, competence which, in the State’s view, the
[African] Commission does not have.
22. The above-mentioned decision by the Constitutional Council had been made on the appeal
submitted by Members of Parliament after adoption of the law by the National Assembly and prior to
its promulgation by the President of the Republic. The Members of Parliament had requested the
Constitutional Council to declare Articles 1, 2, 4 para. 2 and 10 of the law in question as being in
conflict with some provisions of the Constitution, notably the preamble and Articles 1, 67, 76 and 88,
as well as with some provisions of the UDHR and the African Charter. Whilst it ruled that Article 2 of
the law in question was in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitutional Council declared itself
incompetent to pronounce on the conformity of the said law with the treaties ratified by Senegal. The
Council considered that:
•
•
•
•
“…Article 74 of the Constitution grants the Constitutional Council competence to pronounce
solely on the conformity to the Constitution, of laws referred to it for consideration;[/quote]
…under the terms of Article 98 of the Constitution, ‘the Conventions or Agreements lawfully
ratified or approved have, from their date of publication, competence higher than that of the
laws, subject to, for each Convention or Treaty, its application by the other Party”;
that these provisions neither prescribe nor entail the checking of the conventionality of the
laws within the framework of pronouncement on the conformity of laws with the Constitution as
provided for in Article 74 of the said Constitution;
…that it is beyond the competence of the Constitutional Council to assess the conformity of
the law with the provisions of an international Convention or Treaty;”
23. The Respondent State considers further that to claim, as the Complainants have done, “that in
th
promulgating the amnesty law ‘Ezzan’ passed by National Representation on the 4 January 2005, the
President of the Republic of Senegal had allowed the entry into force of a law which violates the
above-mentioned article (of the Charter) “is insulting to the State of Senegal and to its democratic
institutions”.
th
24. In its oral submission before the [African] Commission during the 40 Session, the Respondent
State had re-affirmed that the law as promulgated by the President of the Republic after verification of
its conformity with the Constitution had not been subjected to any jurisdictional appeal, and the
absence of real and identifiable victims makes such an appeal improbable. The [Respondent] State
also recalled that the ruling of the Constitutional Council does not prevent future victims from seizing
the competent courts to demand redress for any damage they may have suffered.
25. Furthermore, the State clarified the procedure to be adopted before the Constitutional Council.
The Council can be seized through action (before the promulgation of a law) and by exception (after
the promulgation of a law). Through action, only the President of the Republic and one tenth of the
Members of the National Assembly can challenge a law adopted by the National Assembly before the
Constitutional Council. Through exception, any citizen, during a proceeding to which he is a party
before the National Council or the Appeals Court, can challenge the unconstitutionality of a law. In
such as case, the National Council or the Appeals Court defers the judgment and seizes the
Constitutional Council which first of all has to rule on the constitutionality of the said law.
26. The Respondent State further withdrew its submission on the use of insulting language by the
Complainants.
27. The State of Senegal prays the African Commission to declare communication
304/05 inadmissible.
Comments by the complainants on the memorandum of the State on admissibility
28. The Complainant NGOs first of all challenge the admissibility of the submission of the State on
the grounds that it had not been submitted within the three months deadline given to the State by the
[African] Commission.
29. The Complainants then go on to refute, one by one, the arguments of inadmissibility raised by the
Respondent State. Thus, with regard to the compatibility with the [African] Charter, they contend, using
the jurisprudence of the African Commission as basis, notably its decision
on communication 245/2002 Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum/Zimbabwe that to be compatible
with the [African] Charter, the communication has only got to invoke the provisions of the law which
are presumed to have been violated, and that from then on it is “up to the African Commission, after
having considered all the facts at its disposal, to make a ruling on the rights which have been violated
and to recommend the appropriate remedy to restitute the rights of the Complainant”. According to
them, communication 304/05 attempts to denounce the impunity sanctioned by the amnesty law
known as ‘Ezzan’ by making it impossible for the perpetrators of crimes to be brought to justice in
blatant violation of Article 7.1.a of the [African] Charter.
30. The complainants also assert that the simple fact of declaring that a State Party has violated a
provision of the [African] Charter can hardly constitute, on its own, an ‘insulting’ remark, and that “to
admit that such an allegation is insulting would result in challenging the principle itself of resorting to
the Commission for a remedy” .
31. The Complainant also denies having based its communication on “potential or hypothetical” facts,
or limiting itself “to simple declarations by re-echoing the artificial opinions of the political opposition”,
as is being claimed by the State in its submission. The facts which form the basis of the
communication, it contends, have been verified. For the complainant NGOs, both the FIDH and its
affiliates in Senegal and other international human rights protection institutions such as the UN Human
Rights Commission [sic], had previously denounced the human rights violations committed in the
context of the electoral process in Senegal.
32. With regard to the identification of the victims, the Complainant NGOs recall that Article 56.1 of
the [African] Charter simply requires that the identity of the authors of a communication be mentioned.
They base their argument on the position of the [African] Commission in its decision
on communications ).
33. Concerning the exhaustion of local remedies, the Complainants recall that according to the terms
of the Constitution of the Republic of Senegal, the international conventions have a supra-legislative
value, that some of them, the African Charter included, having been cited in the preamble, even form
an integral part of this constitutionality, and that the Constitutional Council is the sole competent body
to rule on the constitutionality of a law. They also recall that the decisions of the Constitutional Council
cannot be appealed and that only the President of the Republic, one tenth of the Members of the
National Assembly, the National Council or the Court of Appeal are empowered, when an exception of
unconstitutionality is brought before them, to seize the Constitutional Council. They therefore conclude
that the decision of the Constitutional Council declaring that the disputed law is in conformity with the
Constitution makes it impossible for anybody to challenge this law before the national courts.
34. The Complainant NGOs recall in conclusion that their communication had been submitted within
a reasonable time frame and that they had not instituted any other international legal proceedings.
th
35. In their oral submission before the African Commission during the 40 Session, the Complainants
recalled that the communication had not been drafted in abusive or insulting language. Furthermore,
they re-affirm that the Constitutional Council had already made a ruling on the law in question, and
that the decision of the Constitutional Council could not be subjected to any appeal. The Complainants
further contended that if remedies of a civil nature are guaranteed by the law being challenged, the
amnesty law makes it impossible for any kind of criminal punishment to be meted out against the
perpetrators of crimes, thereby supporting impunity in Senegal.
36. The Complainants invite the [African] Commission to declare the communication admissible.
Decision of the [African] Commission
37. The admissibility of communications presented in conformity with the terms of Article 55 of the
Charter is governed byArticle 56 of the African Charter which stipulates that:
“The communications referred to in Article 55 received by the Commission and pertaining to human
and peoples’ rights should necessarily, to be considered, fulfill the following conditions:
[*} Indicate the identity of the author even if the latter requests the Commission to maintain
his/her anonymity;
1. Should be compatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or with the present
Charter
2. Should not contain language which is abusive or insulting towards the implicated State, its
institutions or the OAU;
3. Should not limit itself to gathering only the information broadcast by the mass media;
4. Should be subsequent to the exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is clear to the
Commission that the procedure of these remedies is unduly prolonged;
5. Should be submitted within a reasonable time frame starting from the exhaustion of local
remedies or from the date stipulated by the Commission as being the beginning of the deadline
to its own seizure.
6. Should not pertain to cases which have been settled in conformity with either the principles of
the Charter of the [UN] or the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity or the provisions of
this Charter”.
38. The [African] Commission recalls that the conditions outlined in Article 56 are cumulative and
should all be adequately fulfilled for a communication submitted in conformity with the terms of Article
55 to be admissible. Consequently, non-respect of any one of these conditions is liable to render a
communication inadmissible.
39. In this particular case, most of the conditions laid down by Article 56 appear, prima facie to have
been respected by the authors of communication 304/05 :
•
•
•
•
the communication is not anonymous; it pleads the violation of a provision of the Charter;
it is not exclusively based on information broadcast by the mass media;
it is not the object of any international proceedings before another judicial or quasi-judicial body;
it was submitted within a reasonable time frame, and the [African] Commission did not find any
abusive or insulting language in it.
The only condition which really poses a problem for both parties is Article 56.5 of the Charter which is
the question of exhaustion of local remedies.
40. Before considering the condition relating to the exhaustion of local remedies, the [African]
Commission would like to address the matter of the identity of victims raised by the Respondent State
in its argument. The [African] Commission recalls, in this context, that the African Charter does not call
for the identification of the victims of a communication. According to the terms of Article 56.1, only the
identification of the author or authors of the communication is required. Besides it is not necessary for
the author or authors to be present or the victims even where some link between the author and the
2
victim exists. That had in fact been confirmed by the practice of the African Commission . The
flexibility of Article 56of the African Charter, which differs in this from the other international human
rights protection instruments, is fully justified in the African context and “reflects sensitivity of the
practical difficulties which individuals can be faced with in the countries where human rights are
3
violated” .
41. Concerning the exhaustion of local remedies, according to the provisions of Article 56.5, the
communications referred to in Article 55 received by the [African] Commission and relative to human
and peoples’ rights should, necessarily, to be considered, fulfill the following conditions:
“….be sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious to the [African] Commission that
the procedure of these remedies is unduly prolonged.”
42. It does not at all show from the facts at the disposal of the [African] Commission that efforts had
been made by the authors of the communication to exhaust the local remedies available against Law
th
No. 2005-05 of 17 February 2005. The remedy used by some Members of the National Assembly
cannot constitute, in the view of the [African] Commission, an attempt to exhaust local remedies for
th
th
two main reasons: First of all, this had been initiated on the 12 and 13 January 2005 and the ruling
th
of the Constitutional Council had been made on the 12 February 2005, that is to say before the entry
th
into force of Law No. 2005-05 of 17 February 2005. The [African] Commission is of the view that a
law which has not yet entered into force cannot violate any right which is protected by the [African]
Charter.
43. Then, it would appear from the facts as presented by the two parties, from the appeal by the
parliamentarians and from the ruling of the Constitutional Council which sanctioned it, that the victims
had the opportunity to seize the competent Senegalese courts or even the Constitutional Council
through the method of challenge of constitutionality. The [African] Commission observes that instead
of following this procedure, the Complainants approached it (the [African] Commission) directly.
44. If the parties agree to recognise that the decisions of the Constitutional Council cannot be
appealed, there is no evidence to show that where the Constitutional Council declares itself
incompetent to deal with a given issue (here it relates to the verification of the conformity of a law with
a Convention, in this case the African Charter), no other legal body in Senegal is competent on the
matter. The [African] Commission is of the view that the local remedies to which Article 56.5 makes
reference, cannot be limited to penal remedies. They include all the legal remedies, whether civil,
penal or administrative.
45. On the basis of all of the above arguments, the [African] Commission concludes that the
Complainants did not exhaust all the local remedies.
Holding
For this reason, the [African] Commission declares the communication inadmissible.
th
th
Done at the 40 Ordinary Session of the African Commission held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 15 –
th
29 November, 2006.
Footnotes
th
1. Senegal ratified the African Charter on 13 August 1982.
2. See notably the decision on communications 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 à 196/97, 210/98 Malawi Africa
Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and RADDHO,
Collectif des veuves et ayants-Droit, Association mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme.
3. Idem, para. 78.