ffir
assistance during his trial contrary to Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter (See paragraph 71
of the Judgment). From this finding, it is clear that the Respondent State is the losing
party and in accordance with the general default principle, that a losing party meets
the costs of the suit, it would ordinarily be the case that it shall be the Respondent
State to bear the costs.
6.
However, Rule 30 of the Rules provides that "Unless otherurise decided by the
Court, each party shall bear its own costs". According to this rule, the default principle
for the Court is thus that each party bears its cost unless the Court decides otherwise.
ln the past, the Court has applied this rule on many occasions and held in majority of
cases that each party covers its own costs, even where the Respondent State was
found to be in breach of the Charter and other relevant human rights instruments. This
has been the case also where neither of the Parties has filed submissions on costs.l
This reinforces the fact that costs are not damages for the violations of human rights
as such but a compensation or reimbursement of expenses incurred by the a party for
the litigation.
7.
The opinion of the majority in the instant case is therefore a clear departure
from the Court's established position. While we do not have problems with this shift in
approach, we nevertheless believe that the departure should have been necessitated
by some cogent reasons or, at the minimum, supported by adequate justification,
which the majority did not provide. Regrettably in another judgment, in the Matter of
Dicoles William v. United Republic of Tanzanra, delivered on the same day with similar
facts relating to costs, the Court contradicted itself by deciding that each party shall
bear its own costs, ln spite of the fact that in that matter, as in the instant Application,
the Applicant neither claimed costs nor provided any supporting documentation, and
only the Respondent State prayed the Court to order the Applicant to bear the costs,
the majority in this case agreed that each party bears its own costs.2
lSee Application No.010/20't5. Judoment'11/05/ 2018. Amiri
Ramadhani v. United Republic of
Tanzania, para. 90, Application No 046/2016. Judqment of 11105/2018. APDF & IHRDA v Republic of
Mali, para. 134, Apolication No. 011/2015, iudqment 28109/2017. Christopher Jonas v. United Republic
of Tanzania. para. 98, Application No. 032/2015 - Kiiiii lsiaqa v. United Republic of Tanzania. Judgment
of 2110312018 para. 101
2 Application No. 016/2016. Judgmentof 2110912A18. Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania,
paras. 107-110
2
S"*\
@