the Complainant into the draft decision to enable the African Commission take a reasoned decision on
admissibility.
th
14. At the 29 Ordinary Session held in Tripoli, Libya, the African Commission noted that the
Complainant had submitted a detailed brief on the case. It was therefore recommended that
th
consideration of this communication be deferred to the 30 Session pending submission of a detailed
response by the Respondent State.
th
15. On 19 June 2001, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties of the above
decision and requested the Respondent State to forward its written submissions within two (2) months
from the date of notification of the decision.
th
th
th
16. During the 30 Session held from 13 to 27 October in Banjul, The Gambia, the African
Commission heard the oral submissions from both parties. Following detailed discussions on the
matter, the African Commission noted that the Respondent State had not responded to the issues
raised by the Complainant. The African Commission therefore deferred consideration of these
communications to the 31st Session, pending receipt of detailed written submissions from the
Respondent State to those of the Complainant.
th
17. On 15 November 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties on the
decision of the African Commission and requested Respondent State to forward its written
submissions within two (2) months from the date of notification of its decision.
nd
th
18. At its 31st Ordinary Session held from 2 to 16 May 2002 in Pretoria, South Africa, the African
Commission heard submissions from both parties and declared the communication admissible.
th
19. On 29 May 2002, the Respondent State and the Complainants were informed of the African
Commission‟s decision.
nd
th
rd
20. At the 32 Ordinary Session held from 17 to 23 October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia, the
Representative of the Respondent State requested the African Commission orally and in writing to
review its decision on admissibility relating to all the communications brought by the Complainant
against the government of Sudan. The African Commission informed the Respondent State that the
issue of admissibility of the communications had been settled and that the Respondent State should
submit its arguments on the merits.
rd
th
th
21. At its 33 Ordinary Session held from 15 to 29 May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African
Commission considered this communication and decided to deliver its decision on the merits.
Law
Admissibility
22. Article 56 (5) of the Charter stipulates that communications relating to human rights… “received
by the African Commission shall be considered if they…are sent after exhausting local remedies, if
any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”.
23. The Complainant alleges that no effective remedies existed at the time of the violation of human
rights because the acts of security officers in Sudan were not subject to review by judicial authorities
and furthermore, security officials were protected from prosecution by the National Security Act of
1994.
24. The Complainant alleges that the National Security Act of 1994, which was in effect at the time of
Mr Ghazi Suleiman‟s arrest, “by its terms, ensured that the security forces could and would operate
completely outside the law”. The result is that the threats of the security officials against Mr Ghazi
Suleiman, as well as their ability to carry them out, were acts conducted with impunity and against
which Mr Suleiman had no domestic remedy.
25. The Complainant states that in practice, procedures that may exist for the redress of human
rights abuses by the government of Sudan are often inaccessible to individuals whose human rights
have been violated because the regular judicial and the administrative remedies have substantial
obstacles that prevent their use.
26. The Respondent State requested that this complaint be thrown out or withdrawn on the grounds
that it is lacking in veracity, evidence or justification. It is submitted that the Complainant is trying to