Previous 8 / 33 Next

35. The Complainants further argue that the violations of a serious and massive nature meet the principle that the Respondent State should be informed of a human rights violation to provide it with an opportunity to redress it before being brought before an international [urisdiction.t? 36. As a result, the Complainants submit that local remedies do not fulfil the three criteria for exhaustion, due to the excessively high number of victims who would have to exhaust the remedies individually and due to the serious and massive nature of the violations. 37. Furthermore, the Complainants submit that the Communication is admissible because it falls within the scope of the derogation from the requirement to exhaust local remedies for low-income victims. The Complainants cite the case of Purohit and Moore v. The Gambia, in which the Commission found the Communication admissible because ental health patients were generally lowincome people who could not afford legal aid and therefore had no real possibility of obtaining redress at the domestic level.P 38. The Complainants argue that, in this COrnIFunication, it is generally women with low levels of income who are denied access to maternal health care due to financial barriers, resulting in preventable maternal mortality and morbidity. 39. Therefore, the Complainants contend that the Communication falls within the scope of three derogations to the requirement under Article 56(5), as local remedies are unavailable, ineffective or insufficient due to the large number of victims, the serious and massive nature of the violations and the low income of the victims. 4 ,\~ ;:~I!-.. 40. Article 56 of the African Charter sets out seven conditions, applicable jointly and cumulatively, which a communication under Article 55 of the African Charter should meet in order to be admissible. 41. The Commission notes that the Complainants submitted arguments on admissibility solely in respect of Article 56 (5) of the African Charter. However, the Commission will undertake its analysis on Admissibility in the light of the Complainants' arguments in relation to Article 56(5), in addition to the other info~mation provided in the Communication. 42. Furthermore, although the Commission requested t present its arguments and evidence on admissibility P 7

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 564/15 - Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Equality
Maputo Protocol
Right to Health
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The Complainants state that thousands of Nigerian women have lost their lives because the Respondent State has failed to provide adequate access to maternal health care services. They emphasize that these deaths were preventable, and they note that the Respondent State's per capita health expenditure is among the lowest in the world. They also emphasize that, since only women can get pregnant, the failure to provide quality maternal care services is discriminatory, as it is a unique and important element of womens' health. The complainants also note the inter-sectional nature of discrimination in maternal health services, as poor women often have even less access to quality care services. The Commission found no violation of Article 4 as they state that it was not demonstrated that the Respondent State had sufficient resources to prevent maternal deaths, or that it had failed to take steps to improve the right to maternal health. The Commission found no violation of Article 16 because they state that the highest attainable standard of health is dependent on the economic capacity of the state. They further state that the 15% budget allocation for the health sector, which the Respondent State agreed to in the Abuja Declaration, is an expression of political will, not a legally binding instrument, and cannot be enforced against the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol because they stated that a causal link between the facts and the alleged violations was not demonstrated. The Commission found no violation of Article 5 because they stated that it was not proven that the omissions of the health service providers had a specific and well-defined objective of humiliating the victims or inducing them to act against their will. Further, they state that it was not established that the acts or omissions of health service providers created feelings of fear, anguish, or inferiority in the victims. The Commission found no violation of Article 2 because, while fees for access to maternity services exist, the Commission states that it was not established the fees were introduced with the particular objective of preventing poor women from accessing maternity services. Regarding the discriminatory requirement that women must have their husband donate blood, or, alternatively, pay a fee, the Commission stated that there was no evidence to establish a violation. The Commission found no violation of Article 3 because they state that it was not established how victims received differential protection by the law and courts of the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Article 9 because they state that it was not shown how the ignorance of Nigerian women about contraception contributed to the risk of maternal mortality, or that the Respondent State played a passive role in providing information. The Commission found no violation of the right to scientific progress because they state that scientific progress has to be available, and it was not established how scientific progress in the Respondent State is available and sufficient to overcome these challenges, or that, if it is available, that it has been made inaccessible to women. The Commission found no violation of Article 7 because they stated that it was not demonstrated that the victims were prevented from seizing the compentent bodies, or that they were denied such an opportunity.

Country

Nigeria

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Dec 31, 2014 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.081999

Longitude: 8.675277

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Nigeria

Primary Documents

Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 564/15 - Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria

Primary Documents

Notifications