2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. This case is simply a classical dispute about real estate property between members of the same family in which the intervention of the Cadi is in keeping with the existing law and practice in Mauritania; It was on the request of Mr Bah Ould Rabah that the Maurit[an]ian Courts, had, within a reasonable period, passed judgement through the District Court of Boutilimitt on the th th 26 December 1998 [sic], the decision of the Regional Court of Rosso on the 11 March 1990 th and the decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritania in Nouakchott on 11 November 1990; It would appear from his own submission that the plaintiff recognized that the Courts seized had arrived at a final decision on the basis of facts derived from the documents presented by himself and his opponent (namely the certificates of occupancy), which is in conformity with the rules within their competence and thereby indicates that the dispute relates to the right to ownership of property and that the conflicting parties have enjoyed the conditions of a fair trial, with the participation of their lawyers in the proceedings and in the hearings; His allegations relative to slavery and the violation of his rights were baseless; The Government of Mauritania admits that undoubtedly the consequences of slavery, against which it continues to fight, still linger on in the country. But this is not sufficient to justify the allegations of Rabah Ould Bah (the complainant) relative to the issue of slavery raised by Mohamed Bah (his opponent) before the Mauritanian Courts, in violation of the African Charter and its provisions as mentioned above; Accordingly, Bah Ould Rabah (the complainant) should have all his claims dismissed. 27. The African Commission has noted that no document exists in the case file which clearly delineates the reason for the donation made to Mohamed Moustapha by the late mother of the Complainant and also that there is no opposing statement to the effect that the witnesses named by the plaintiff had retracted their statements after having given evidence before the Cadi in support of Mohamed Moustapha. 28. The African Commission realises that Mr Bah Ould Rabah had enjoyed all the conditions of a fair trial and had thus exhausted all the local remedies. The fact that he had lost the case after exhausting the procedures he had initiated was due to a weak judicial system and not on the basis of the practice th of slavery or slave like practices. In fact, slavery had been abolished (order No. 81.234 of 9 June 1981 and 1991 Constitution). 29. The African Commission further noted that from the information in its possession (report of the mission to Mauritania, statements made by NGOs and the delegates from Mauritania during the various Sessions of the African Commission as well as from diverse documents from the Government of the Republic of Mauritania), that the consequences of slavery still persist in Mauritania and that, for people to act as Mohamed Moustapha Ould Bah has done has become common practice in the country. 30. Furthermore in the African Commission’s view, to accept that someone, and a mother for that matter, can deprive her own children of their inheritance for the benefit of a third party, with no specific reason as in this case, is not in conformity with the protection of the right to property (Article 14 of the African Charter). 31. The African Commission thus calls upon all the public institutions in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania to persevere in their efforts so as to control and eliminate all the offshoots of slavery. Decision of the African Commission For these reasons, [the African Commission]; Considers that the dispossession of the plaintiff of part of his mother’s heritage, through a donation without well-substantiated reasons, constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the African Charter. Recommends to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania to take the appropriate steps to restore the plaintiff his rights.