00103{
And in paragraph 113 the Court notes, "That nothing in the file indicates that any ofthe conditions had n
not been met in the instant case". "And that consequently the Court finds that the above mentioned :'
conditions have been entirely met".
ln my view this expedite approach of discussing the other conditions of admissibility not in contention
between the Parties goes contrary to the spirit of Articles 56 of the Charter, 6 the Protocol and.Rule
40 of the Rules which require the Court to discuss those conditions.
Especially because after having discussed the ob.jection to the exhaustion of local remedies and found
in paragraph 110 "that the chances of success of all cases for reparation of damages resulting from
the alleged violations are negligible" and that "even where the local remedies to be exhausted exist
the particular circumstances surrounding the case make them inaccessible and inefficient......"
The Court invariably should have focused on the condition of reasonable time linked to the above
mentioned ob.iection pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules,
And that declaring as we see in paragraph 113 that "the Court notes that nothing in the file indicates
o
that any of the conditions have not been met ....." has as a consequence, making the operative part of
the judgement on admissibility baseless at least in relation to the conditions which were not in
discussion between the Parties and consequently the Court,
a
Provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, 6 (2) the Protocol and Rules 39 and 40 of the Rules
with regard to the objection raised by the Respondent State on the failure
to exhaust local remedies the Court found that the particular circumstances surroundinB this case
madb the said remedies inaccessible and ineffective for the Applicant who is therefore not required to
It should be noted that
exha ust the local remedies.
Meanwhile, the Court should also have determined on the issue of reasonable time of the filing
of the Application, because in terms of Article 56 of the Charter paragraph 6 and Rule 40 of the Rules,
applications must be filed "within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or
from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which is shall be
seized of the m atter",
o
H
aving found grounds for failure to exhaust local remedies and having excused the Applicant for
failing to exhaust them, the Court should have, pursuant to the above-mentioned article, retained a
date as the beginning of its own seizure.,.,such as the date of the of CRIET judgement 18/01/2018.,..
for insta n ce,
ln my opinion, by failing to deal with this condition the Court weakened its finding on the
admissibility of the Application.
Thus, if in the Court's jurisprudence
it interpreted "local remedies" which are binding to the
Applicant such as ordinary remedies, this jurisprudence is not binding to the Applicant in determining
reasonable time because in my opinion the Court could compute reasonable time as from the date an
extraordinary remedy is filed or on the date the judgement is rendered. And that in this way the Court
could have applied the second rule enshrined in Articles 55 (5) of the Charter, 6 (2) the Protocol and
Rules 39 and a0 (5) of the Rules.
2