Law
Admissibility
Arguments of the Complainant on Admissibility
28. The Complainant argues that the Communication meets all the requirements laid down by Article 56 of
the African Charter. He emphasizes that the Victim is well known and that the Complaint is compatible with
the Charter as it relates to alleged violations by the DRC of Articles 3, 7 and 14 of the African Charter.
29. Still according to the Complainant, the complaint filed at the Commission does not contain any
disparaging remarks against Congolese authorities.
30. The Complainant notes that his Complaint is based on real facts as evidenced by the numerous
documents submitted in support of the complaint.
31. The Complainant also alleges that local remedies under Congolese law have been exhausted, given
that the Complainant seized the High Court of Bukavu and the Bukavu Appeals Court.
32. The Complainant declares that following a petition lodged on 12 July 1991, the Supreme Court of
Justice, by ruling in judgement No. RC/1704/1705, dated 3 March 1994, had overturned judgement No. RC
1155/1180/1729 delivered on 8 April 1991 by the Bukavu Appeals Court and referred the case to the
Appeals Court in Kinshasa/Matete. By Judgement No. RAC 001 delivered on 29 December 1994, the Court
of Appeal in Kinshasa Matete rejected the appeals of the appellants, namely State, Noca and Kizila.
33. The complainant alleges that a second appeal for annulment of judgment No. RAC 001 rendered on 29
December 1994 by the Court of Appeal of Kinshasa/Matete was lodged with the Supreme Court and
registered under RC029/TSR.
34. The Complainant alleges having even resorted to extraordinary remedies which are vested solely in the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General who had declared the remedy unavailable as confirmed by letter
No. 1023/mm90/CAB/MIN/J/2004, dated 23 March 2004, which was sent in response to the letter from Mr.
Manzila,dated 12 December 2003 (documents attached to the file).
35. The Complainant asserts that the Complaint was lodged with the Commission for almost three months
after delivery of the final judgment by the Supreme Court on 28 November 2003 and that the Commission
is the only body seized of this matter.
Arguments of the Respondent State on Admissibility
36. The Respondent State made no submission on the admissibility of this communication despite
numerous reminders that had been forwarded to it.
Analysis of the Commission on Admissibility
37. The admissibility of Communications submitted in accordance with Article 55 of the Charter is governed
by the requirements stipulated in Article 56 of the same Charter.
38. The Commission consistently made sustained efforts to get the Respondent State to forward its written
arguments and observations on admissibility since its 35th Ordinary Session held from 21 May to 4 June
2004 in Banjul, The Gambia, when the Commission was seized of the Communication.
39. The Commission therefore notes the refusal by the Respondent State to cooperate, and is obliged to
consider the Communication on the basis of verifiable information provided by the Complainant.
40. Furthermore, it must be noted that during the 42nd Ordinary Session held in Brazzaville, Congo, a
delegation of the Respondent State pledged to exercise due diligence in order to forward its written
arguments on admissibility.
41. The Respondent State, however, did not make any submissions to dispute the arguments of the
Complainant on the admissibility of the case.
42. As a result, the Commission declares the Communication admissible in accordance with Article 119
paragraph 45 of its Rules of Procedure and with its own jurisprudence.6
3