Communication 260/2002 - Bakweri Land Claims Committee (BLCC) v. Cameroon (Review on Admissibility) Summary of the Application for Review: 1. On 12 September 2013, the Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Secretariat), received a request for reconsideration of the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) reached during its 36th Ordinary Session held from 23rd November to 7th December 2004, in which the Commission declared Communication 260/2002, Bakweri Land Claims Committee (BLCC) v. Cameroon, inadmissible. 2. The request is submitted by the BLCC Secretary General (the Complainant), in accordance with Rule 118 (2) of the 1995 Rules of Procedure of the Commission (hereinafter the 1995 Rules). 3. The original Communication was declared inadmissible on the ground that it did not comply with Article 56 (5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Charter) which requires Communications to be sent to the Commission after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged. In its decision, the Commission concluded that the Complainants did not make any attempts whatsoever to exhaust local remedies. 4. In relation to the original Communication, the Complainant submitted that the rule for exhaustion of domestic remedies, presupposes a level legal playing field for the contestants, but that in the case of the Respondent State, the President is constitutionally the Chief Magistrate/Judge who presides over the Higher Judicial Council that hires, pays, transfers, promotes, and disciplines all judicial officers including magistrates and judges, all of whom are appointed by him and hold office at his pleasure. These appointees perform their duties on powers delegated to them by the President. 5. Further in support of its contention regarding the Respondent State’s judiciary, the Complainant referred the Commission to various independent international reports pertaining to the Respondent State’s judiciary, which conclude that the judiciary is overloaded, corrupt, and tele-guided by the executive arm of the State. 1

Select target paragraph3