197/97 : Bah Ould Rabah / Mauritania
Summary of Facts
1. In November 1975, four years after the death of his mother, Mr Bah Ould Rabah, a Mauritanian
national, [the Complainant], and his family were forcefully expelled from their ancestral domicile by the
man named Mohamed O. Bah on the grounds that the mother of the Complainant, the late Aichetou
Valle, was his slave and that subsequently, the house bequeathed to her descendants and the whole
estate around it became legally the property of Mohamed O. Bah, the alleged ‘owner’ of the deceased.
2. When the plaintiff approached them, the local authorities and the courts decided in favour of his
opponent and the Supreme Court upheld this decision. The plaintiff wrote to the highest authorities,
including the President of the Republic, to contest this decision which he qualifies as “flagrant support
of the Government to the illegal institution of slavery”. To date, however, he has received no reply.
Complaint
3. The communication alleges violation of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the African Charter.
Procedure
th
4. Communication 197/97 is dated 11 April 1997.
st
5. The African Commission assumed jurisdiction in the case during its 21 Ordinary Session held in
Nouakchott, Mauritania, in April 1997.
th
6. On 7 July 1997, a Note Verbale of notification was sent to the government concerned urging it to
reply to the allegations contained in the communication.
th
7. On 7 July 1997, the Complainant was informed of the decision of seizure.
nd
8. During the 22 Ordinary Session, the [African] Commission deferred any decision on this
communication pending the reception of the comments from the Government of Mauritania on the
report of the mission undertaken to that country.
9. The African Commission continued the process of exchanging information between the parties.
th
10. The African Commission considered this communication at its 35 Ordinary Session held in
Banjul, The Gambia and decided to deliver its decision on the merits.
Law
Admissibility
11. Article 56.5 of the African Charter requires that communications received within the context of the
provisions of Article 55should be submitted “after exhaustion of all local remedies, if they exist, unless
it is clear to the Commission that this procedure is being unduly prolonged”.
12. In the case under consideration, the plaintiff filed court decisions attesting that he used and
exhausted the remedies before the competent national courts with a view to obtaining compensation
for the alleged violation of his rights.
13. The complainant furnished the African Commission with the judgement of the Boutilimitt District
th
th
Court of 26 December 1998, the decision of the Rosso Regional Court if [sic] 11 March 1990 and
th
the decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritania in Nouakchott of 11 November 1990.
14. The African Commission contacted the Respondent State demanding for [sic] information with
respect to exhaustion of local remedies and the Respondent State responded by stating that local
remedies had been exhausted.
15. It is therefore unquestionable that the Complainant had met the provisions of Article 56.5 of the
African Charter.