|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 2022 |
|
|
A communication alleging arrest and death sentence was struck out for want of diligent prosecution under Rules 105(1) and 113.
Human rights procedure – Communication alleging arbitrary arrest, unfair trial and death sentence – Failure to submit admissibility arguments within two months – Rule 105(1) and Rule 113 – Strike out for want of diligent prosecution.
|
9 March 2022 |
|
A death-penalty communication was struck out for failure to prosecute and submit merits within prescribed time.
Procedure — Strike out for want of diligent prosecution — Rule 108(1) (submission of merits within 60 days) and Rule 113 (extension on application) — Failure to file submissions or seek extension — Provisional measures and admissibility do not prevent strike out.
|
9 March 2022 |
|
Communication alleging arrest, torture and surveillance struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
Human rights (Articles 5, 6, 9) – allegations of torture, arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention and unlawful surveillance; Commission procedure – admissibility, Rule 105(1), Rule 113, diligent prosecution, striking out communications.
|
9 March 2022 |
|
The applicant’s request to withdraw an interstate communication at the merits stage was granted and the case closed.
Interstate communication – withdrawal by author State at merits stage – Commission’s discretion to accept withdrawal – Rule 124 Rules of Procedure (2020) – amicable settlement attempt – declaration of case closure.
|
9 March 2022 |
|
The respondent State’s electoral body's annulment of the applicant’s candidacy without hearing violated Articles 7(1) and 13(1).
Electoral law – Candidate eligibility – Residency requirement; Right to a fair hearing – audi alteram partem; Right to participate in government – standing for election; Exhaustion of local remedies – CES as final ad hoc chamber; Commission may decide on merits where State silent.
|
9 March 2022 |
|
Communication alleging Articles 7 and 12 violations struck out for want of diligent prosecution after procedural inaction.
Human rights complaints – Admissibility – Failure to file evidence and arguments within time – Rule 105(1) and Rule 113 – Strike out for want of diligent prosecution – Alleged violations of Articles 7 and 12 of the African Charter.
|
9 March 2022 |
|
The applicant's request to withdraw a human-rights communication was granted and the communication declared closed.
African Commission – Communication withdrawal – Request to withdraw granted – Striking out for want of diligent prosecution – Consistent with prior jurisprudence.
|
9 March 2022 |
|
Respondent violated the applicant’s rights via unfair parliamentary trial, failure to protect property and to investigate/prosecute attacks.
Human Rights – Admissibility and exhaustion of local remedies – exception where remedies ineffective or unduly prolonged – State responsibility for failures to protect against non‑state actors – fair trial guarantees in parliamentary contempt proceedings – unlawful expropriation and lack of adequate compensation – failure to investigate and prosecute sexual and other violent crimes.
|
9 March 2022 |
