0t3120t7
pTlRlaotT
( Oo+o<s -
oo zfross)uL
00103[
African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
ln the Matter of 56bastien Germain Ajavon
V
Republic of Benin
Dissenting Opinion aftached to the judgement ol 2910312Ot9
I
concur with the opinion of the majority of judges in regard to the admissibility of the Application, the
Jurisdiction of the Court and the operative part of the ludgement,
o
However, I am of the view that the manner in which the Court dealt with the admissibility of the
Application is not in tandem with the provisions of Articles 6 (2) of the Protocol, 50 and 56 of the
Charter, and Rules 39 and 40 of the Rules of Court.
In terms of Rule 39 (1) of the Rules, "the Court shall conduct a preliminary examination of its
jurisdiction and the adm issibility of the Application in accordance with Articles 50 and 56 of the Charter
and Rule 40 of the Rules".
Ihis clearly implies
- lf the parties
as
follows
raised objections
to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the
Application, the Court shall decide.
a
lf one of the objections is founded the Court shall deal with it .... Because they
are
cumulative.
a
o
-
lf on the contrary neither of the objections is founded the Court will be obliged to discuss
the other issues on admissibility not discussed by the Parties and will conclude.
Where the Parties do not raise any objection
The Court has the obligation
to
to do so in the order in which they are
presented. lt indeed seems to me to be illogical that the Court should select one of the conditions...
(reasonable time) for instance,.. whereas the identity of the Applicant may pose problems and
therefore not covered ; or any other condition enumerated earlier.
analyse all of them and
It emerges from the judgement which is the subject of this dissenting opinion, that after discussing the
objections raised by the Respondent State to the admissibility of the Application and after finding that
the objections were unfounded (objection to the use of disparaging language in the Application and
that of failure to exhaust local remedies) the Court limited itself in paragraph 112 to citing the other
conditions stating that it was not in contention between the Parties,