Previous 10 / 50 Next

identified. This is more so because the threshold for applying the actio popularis principle has yet to be expounded on by the Commission, which gives room for abuse of the principle by litigants. 63. The present Communication is filed on behalf of the Ethiopian Electorate, and the victims have not been identified. Whereas actio popularis, in its strict sense, does not require the identification of any victim, as it is sufficient that the complaint solely alleges incompatibility of national laws or practices with international law.12 The principle is, therefore, a recognition that the collective damages incurred are so diffused that any person should have the right to litigate in the public's interest.13 In this regard, complaints by NGOs may also be called actio popularis if the NGO does not need to identify or name the victims. 64. According to the Commission’s jurisprudence, the Commission has seized and admitted Communications submitted on the grounds of actio popularis without the requirement of identifying the victims.14 Indeed, the Commission has regularly admitted cases concerning entire populations of individuals, including Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia.15, Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al. v Cameroon,16 The Nubian Community in Kenya v Kenya,17 and Open Society Justice Initiative v. Côte d’Ivoire.18 65. As stated in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the summary of facts of this Communication, The Respondent State’s systematic crackdown on media, public demonstrations, human rights organizations, and political opponents in the 2015 electoral period unlawfully restricted civic space in the country, including the rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. Each unlawful restriction to civic space and the broader chilling effect produced by this systematic pattern of repression prevented the free flow of information, public debate, and dialogue from taking place in the 2015 electoral 12 A Aaken “Making international human rights protection more effective: A rational-choice approach to the effectiveness of locus standi provisions” (2005) 16 Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 1 at 14 https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/26871/1/50037676X.PDF 13 A Aragao & A Carvalho “Taking access to justice seriously: diffuse interests and actio popularis. Why not?” (2017) 2 Environmental Law Network International 42 at 43 https://www.elni.org/fileadmin/elni/dokumente/Archiv/2017/Heft_2/elni20172_Aragao_etal.pdf 14 n 7 above, para 79. 15 Communication 211/98. 16 Communication 266/03 - Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon (2009) ACHPR. 17 Communication 317/06. 18 Communication 318/06. ~ 10 ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region, The Gambia, Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr.au.int/

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 599/16 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Elections / Referendums
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Expression / Digital Rights
Participation in Government
Right to Information

Case Head Notes: The complainants allege that, prior to the 2015 elections, the Respondent State violated their right to participate in public affairs. The Complainants state that civil society, opposition groups, journalists, human rights defenders, and Ethiopians generally, were unable to express opinions critical of the ruling party. The Commission ruled that there was a violation of Article 9 because there was no clear explanation provided of why the arrest of journalists was necessary to protect the public from incitement of violence and hate speech. And further, because the arrest of journalists also deprived the public of their right to information. The Commission found a violation of Article 10 because the Respondent State did not take reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure that people other than those belonging to the ruling party were free to form associations. The Commission found a violation of Article 11 because, while laws exist in the Respondent State to protect freedom of expression and assembly, measures taken by the Respondent State during the 2015 elections curtailed freedom of expression and assembly. They note that suppression of demonstrations, including use of force, and arrest and detention of people participating in such demonstrations violates Article 11. The Commission found a violation of Article 13, noting the correlation between freedom of expression, access to information and the free participation in government. They state that actions that undermine the free choice of voters amount to a violation of Article 13. They also stress that it is not sufficient for the Respondent State to have laws in place which guarantee free participation in government; the laws must be effectively implemented. On account of the other violations, the Commission also found a violation of Article 1. The Commission called on the Respondent State to continue reforming national laws, implement amended laws resulting from the 2018 political reforms, and to report, within 180 days, on the measures taken to implement the recommendations.

Country

Ethiopia

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Nov 9, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government

Rights Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 10: Right to Freedom of Association
ACHPR 11: Right to Freedom of Assembly
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government

Duration of Procedure

Feb 4, 2016 ~ Nov 9, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.145000000000001

Longitude: 40.489673

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Robert F Kennedy Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights in Africa v the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 599/16 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Primary Documents

Notifications