0o 8\2515 - 2G \er\:urq \ G*.,'a[-.\i. .;tEe+) s$ 00Wrs Dissenting opinion of Judge Rafa6 Ben Achour 1. ln the above judgment, Shukrani Masegenya Mango and Others v. united Repubtic of Tanzania, I do not subscribe to the decision of the majority of the judges of the Court declaring the application inadmissible, on the one hand, "in relation to all the Applicants for failure to comply with the requirement under Article 56(5) of the Charter which is restated in Rule 40(5) of the Rules, in so far as it relates to the allegation of violation of the Applicants' rights by reason of the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy"l and, on the other hand, declaring,,[t]he Application admissible in respect of the allegation by the First and Seventh Applicant in relation to the legality of their sentence for armed robbery"z and consequently to rule on the merits of the first and seventh Applicants' claims, which are, by the way, the common claims of all the Applicants. ln my opinion, the application as a whole should have been declared admissible and not inadmissible for some and admissible for others. 2. By using this legal apparatus of treating the same applicants differenfly, the Court breached the unity of the application submitted by the seven applicants at the same time (l). Furthermore, and beyond this first objection, by declaring the application concerning all the Applicants inadmissible as to "the manner in which the right of presidential pardon has been applied", the Court ignored its established case law on extraordinary remedies, in particular the appeal for unconstitutionality before the Tanzanian courts (ll). l. 3. Insufficient understanding of the unity of the apptication It is important to note from the outset that on 17 April2015, the Court received the same and only application, filed by seven individuals" joinfly raising one major common grievance, which relates to the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy"3. Two of them (first and seventh Applicants) were convicted and sentenced 1 Point (iii) of the operative part. Point (iv) of the operative part. 3 Paragraph 1 of the judgment. 2 1

Select target paragraph3