~
i,
,
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
I
:
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
for a case to be deemed suitable for cassation review, it must concern not merely an
,
error in law, but a fundamental
interpreted
one, which is a narrowly
,
constructed
concept
,
to refer to situations. worthy 'of Judicial review and in need of legal
interpretation.
68. The Complainants
submit that in brief, it is taken to refer to situations which involve
the application of incorrect laws, issues related with the jurisdiction of the courts and
issues related to legal interpretation
as seJ out in th,~:~@i6~~:laln.ant'
s Expert Report
....
./.
",,'.'
>
;1,~:iV::j!.:,
provided.
:;," :'
\:,",',.
~
,~
t .;
.
.",/~\{:~;~-,
;--_'Z.
also submit that, due to Jl}e,narro~'i~t~p,Pr~t~tion.,given}o
the
·I~(·;::i,.·.•,:""
>,( •., /~
'~>"<,:..;"," ~"':F:)/
scope of the fundamental error of law tes~'l;1:rlIyver.:x,fe~ cases-are accepted as having
69. The Complainants
a fundamental error of law by the ~essatlb~::Division.:9f the Federal Supreme Court.
/;~:~'
: ',',,:,'_
~:i:'_:_--/
In support of this submission, tq~{~:dmplai~ant$ ~Efgedon the Commission's decision
~
"'; K:i<;'~"
in Interights, Asadho et ~~,tre 0 D1 ,
: RepuBli~~~ Democratique du Congo.t?
. "{~,5_~;;)~~.-~.<..>
•
",reVIew'\;:~~d'
not constitute
where the Commission ,
I
remedy because it could-reoieio on
•
an effeciioe
, •.
.¢,~p~ctlor
of procedure and not the substance
of the claim. C011:seq~en~lYl"[anappedl'(~l~,£as~ationJ,;;tas not capable of curing the alleged
·<~~~,:-:f:~):~.
'':
violations. "
70. The Complainait~~ J~rther submit t\\at tl.1~iprimary basis of the First Complainant's
app al to the Fede'rai tS:upreme Court\Was tHe insufficiency of the evidence brought by
\;..
the
:~> >
2>
...;::~~....
' -. '~~',.~~;:
~
<,gi?i(;l,rt
governmeti,~~<~l,)g';
~liallenging the factual events which the Ethiopian
< \'
!~<{, "q. :~,::.:i?\~~~.:
..",.,.
'L,
governrnenfaII~g~;~,quali£ied
as "terrorism". That the main thrust of his appeal was
'{9:~~ __,,{,~/' <~ }~~:;'(>~\~i{'~"f~·-
.
based on:'~:!];~;facthab:,t~!!J~{governmentconvicted him without proving his guilt. As
.
\.:ii'
i',"
such, the c~t~ of the Fi~st Complainant's
challenge to his conviction was factual and
therefore wo'J!9l!~hevitably fall outside the j~risdiction of the Cassation Division of the
.er
:
Federal Supreme Court.
-r.UIJ\ANAND
:
~ o~ ~"ARI4T
p~o
nos. 274/03 and 282/03, Interights, Asadho et :Maitre 0 Disu v. ~fp#ij'q;o.em~ratiq'~
.u
Congo,The communication concerned alleged human rights abuses of individuals, boi~fuilitCJ!Y~pd~iviliap, wlfp ere
accused of involvement in the assassination of the President of the Democratic RepubliG'of c_fng~O~l,Tne.g.
~
Commission again reaffirmed its findings in the Sir Dawda K. Jaw~a conununicati0f~n ex~aus'~l<2~.df J
(;l
remedies and discussed what constitutes an effective remedy, finding that a court tha~tnly:,reviewe<bRrbcedlge
rather than substance could not provide an effective remedy and therefore if that option;wcf~~j0Juted it di(itbW
.
.
b
I
)"~ ...."s......__ ......... ~,v ,.v
mean that domestic remedies had not een exhausted.
I
,
(~/ON A>'R\()'~¥-:~-s ~
10 Communications
§
161 P age
''''''''.''
ATric;an(r~i)
Union"",!?
.......... !
The African commiss,i~
id Peop'es'
Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout. Kombo North District.
West Coast Region Gambia
Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 0504
Email: au·banjul@africa-union,orq
<~.
https:/achpr.au.inUO
(; III