272 Mizan Law Review Vol. 6 No.2, December 2012 Conclusion African Human rights architecture has become substantially different from other regions of the world since subregional courts have ventured into human rights matters.207 Human rights mandate of these courts is now clear from their constitutions and decisions although such decisions have had bad consequences for the courts in some instances. However, the relation of subregional courts with the African Commission and the African Court is not clear. In particular, it is not clear whether cases decided by subregional courts are admissible before the African Commission or the African Court. Cases decided by subregional courts have not yet been submitted to the African Commission or the African Court. The main reason seems to be that the involvement of subregional courts in human rights matters is a recent phenomenon and the number of cases entertained by these courts is very few. As a result, the African Commission or the African Court has not decided on the admissibility of cases from subregional courts. Still, Yogogombaye v Senegal hints that such submission is inevitable and will be made in the near future. Consideration or revision of subregional courts’ decisions by the African Commission or the African Court might have advantages such as ensuring uniform interpretation of the African Charter. However, the legal basis for referring cases from subregional courts to the African Court or the African Commission is shaky. There is not sufficient legal basis for establishing hierarchical structure between the continental human rights bodies and subregional courts. Admitting cases that have already been decided by subregional courts would have repercussions. it would overburden the African Commission and the African Court as these continental human rights bodies have little time to deal with cases. it would put the defendant state in a difficult position, as the decisions of these courts are final according to treaties establishing them. it would result in trying the defendant states twice by international institutions for the same violation. It would contradict the principles of res judicata. It would contradict some decisions of the African Commission. Therefore, the African Commission and the African Court should not admit cases that have already been decided by subregional courts. _________ ■ 207 The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has clear human rights mandate. The SADC Tribunal ruled that it has human rights mandate. The East African Court of Justice upheld human rights despite suspension of its human rights jurisdiction.