be exhausted.11 The availability of a local remedy is assessed in terms of the ability of
the Complainants to make use of the remedy in their case.12 The rationale behind the
requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is not to create an impediment to access
to redress at supranational level, but rather to make sure that States are given the
information about the alleged violations and an opportunity to redress such violations
within their available means. States should be given ample notice about the violation
that is occurring before being called at international or regional level to account for
those violations.13 Moreover, Complaints are required to exhaust local remedies
because local remedies are ‘cheaper, quicker, and more effective’.14 However, treaty
bodies like this Committee may entertain a case without a local remedy being
exhausted to the end when such remedy is unduly prolonged15 even though a remedy
is available or could be effective if pursued.
18. In the current Communication, it is submitted that one of the Complainants has
attempted to exhaust local remedies since 13 September 2012 when the case was
initially filed at the High Court of Tanzania and the High Court gave its decision on 04
August 2017, 5 years after the submission of the case. It was further submitted that
even though the Complainants filed a notice of appeal at domestic level on 14 August
2017, the Court of Appeal has not given them a hearing date until this case was filed
before the Committee in 2019. The Committee believes that time is of a crucial
essence of local remedy particularly for children as their best interests demand it and
also they have a limited period to enjoy the rights accorded to children as such rights
are prescribed by time. As the Committee, in the children of Nubian Descents Case
pronounced, a court proceeding that is pending for over 6 years is not in line with the
obligation of States to take proactive action and give immediate attention to the
realisation of children’s rights.16 Likewise in the case, Minority Rights Group
International and other v Mauritania, the Committee found that four years of the
pending case at an appeal stage without any decision amounts to an unduly prolonged
domestic remedy, hence the Committee concluded such instance forms a sufficient
ground for exemption from the exhaustion of local remedies requirement.17 Referring
to the practice with other jurisdictions, the Committee notes that a similar approach is
followed by various international and regional bodies. The Human Rights Committee
has declared that a proceeding that lasted 6 years at the domestic level is an unduly
prolonged local remedy which makes a case admissible at the Committee without
11 ACERWC, Communication 002/2009 Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) and
other v Kenya, para 28; ACHPR, Communications 147/95 and 149/96, Sir Dawda K Jawara v The Gambia,
(May 2000), para 31.
12 ACHPR, Communications 147/95 and 149/96, Sir Dawda K Jawara v The Gambia, (May 2000), para 33.
13 ACHPR, Communication 155/96, Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and the Centre for Economic
and Social Rights v Nigeria (Oct 2001) para 38; ACHPR, Communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93,
Free Legal Assistance Group, Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, Union Interafricaine des Droits de
l’Homme, Les Te´moins de Jehovah v Zaire (Oct 1995) para 37.
14 ACHPR, Communication 299/05, Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (May 2006), para 48.
15 ACERWC, Communication No 002/2009, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA)
and other v Kenya (March 2011) para 32; Guidelines for Communications, section IX (1)(d).
16 ACERWC, Communication No 002/2009, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA)
and other v Kenya (March 2011) para 33-34.
17 ACERWC, Communication no 007/Com/003/2015, Minority Rights Group International and SOSEsclaves on behalf of Said Ould Salem and Yarg Ould Salem v Mauritania, (2017), para 28.
JN
9