indicate that the Complainants made a unilateral petition to the Council, which had
been pending for over eight months before approaching the Commission." Were the
remedies unduly prolonged?
124. The Commission has in the past considered that the remedies were unduly prolonged
including after: one year eight months in the case of Kabambi v the Democratic Republic of
Congo;30 ten years in the case of Modise v. Botsioanav! and five years in the case of
Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and Interights v Cameroon= In this regard,
it appears that the time frame may vary with the circumstance of each case.
125. In order to guide itself on this issue, the Commission has developed three criteria,
namely: the legal time limits prescribed by the domestic law; the facts of the case; and
the specific circumstances of the Complainants.P
126. In terms of the legal time limits prescribed by domestic law, Proclamation No. 250/2001
provides under section 18(2) that the issue of constitutional interpretation could be
raised by a party before the courts. The party is also at liberty to submit a case before
the Council within 90 days upon the rejection of his case by the court pursuant to section
22(3). In essence, therefore, having raised the matter before the court on 17th December
2012 and the decision made, as explained under paragraph 87, that the Anti-Terrorism
Proclamation No. 652/2009 did not raise constitutional concerns. The Complainants
therefore made a unilateral application on 15 January 2013 to the Council, which
application has been pending for over eight months.v
127. Assuming that the Council had acted on the application, the House of Federation would
have been obliged to resolve the case within 30 days pursuant to section 13(2) of the
Proclamation No. 251/2001. That the Complainants' petition is still pending eight
months later before the Council for a matter that should have been concluded within a
couple of months is untenable.
128. The facts of the case also appear to support the position that the remedies pursued by
the Complainants were unduly prolonged. Otherwise, the Respondent State would not
have relied on Melanku Fenta and others case to indicate that constitutional matters in the
Respondent State are normally dealt with swiftly.
129. Lastly, the circumstances of the Victims necessitates that the matter is resolved in the
shortest period of time pursuant to the Provisional Measures issued by the Commission
earlier.P Due to the fact that it is probable that the Victims may be facing torture and
other human rights violations in Prison, to require them to wait for a prolonged period
of time would actually defeat the course of justice.
130. The Commission therefore finds that the eight months delay period in this
Communication with regards to the unilateral petition of the Complainants is unduly
See paragraphs 1 and 88 of this Communication.
As above, para 47.
31 Communication
185/2002 - Modise v. Botswana (2000), ACHPR, para 69.
~
32 Communication
272/03 - Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and lnterights v. Cameroonr(20D9), ,. ,4lvu .,~.
ACHPR, para. 47.
.
o~
33 Communication
408/11- Jose Alidor Kabambi Beya Ushiye and others v. Democratic Republic ofl fgo, ACHPR, )
'-'~ \
para 40.
fJg
,..,;
34 See para. 88.
i
u~
,
35 See paras 33 & 34 above.
'i. 04
J'
~.
29
30
~_l
I
~
.'
to)
.
.
5
.,
'"
""
~
1.
~~
...19
'u", ""'RIC
('Ito
....:
~fE'QC.
'"
()r.c.
,,'"
p.,,,~ v
Q
c,<'< ••..
.. '
"
, ,./
.'1I