Previous 9 / 33 Next

Respondent State, it can issue a decision on the basis of the submissions of complainant(s).14 Consequently, the Commission makes the following analysis on Admissibility relying on the information at its disposal. 43. As indicated above, the Complainants' observations relate solely to the exhaustion of local remedies. However, before analysing Article 56(5) of the African Charter, the Commission notes that the other conditions set out in Article 56 of the African Charter have been met. In particular, the author of the Communication has been identified, the Corrifuunication reveals prima facie violations of the African Charter by a State ,Party~ is hot inconsistent with the Constitutive Act of the AU or the African Gharter and the Commission finds no insulting or disparaging language in the Communication. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Communication is based <;mvarious reports from international and national organisations such hs the; World Health Organization, UNFP A, Allan Guttm:acher, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Women Advocacy Research and Documentation Centre.lf and is therefore not exclusively based on media reports. Finally, the Commission has found no evidence tliat the issues .and claims contained in the Communication have been brought bef8t~ or resqlved'by any-other international jurisdiction. "',., , . ,/~'~" :"f·· • 1 *'\'" 44. Consequently, the Commission/is of the view that the requirements Articles 56(1), (2), (3), (4) and (7),'0fthe African Charter have been met. 45. Regarding Article 56(5), the Commission notes that communications under should be submitted after local remedies, if any, nave been exhausted, unless it is clear that'this procedure is unduly prolonged. The rule requiring the exhaustion of local' remedie$' (l~,(lcondition for bringing a complaint before the Commission is premised on~tI1eprinciple that the Respondent State should first have the opportunity, ro;,r.eah~l~,-px,its own means, within the framework of its own domestic legal'" system, 'the wrong that has allegedly been done to the individual.I6:~ 8

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 564/15 - Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Equality
Maputo Protocol
Right to Health
Sexual and Gender Based Violence
Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights
Women's Rights

Case Head Notes: The Complainants state that thousands of Nigerian women have lost their lives because the Respondent State has failed to provide adequate access to maternal health care services. They emphasize that these deaths were preventable, and they note that the Respondent State's per capita health expenditure is among the lowest in the world. They also emphasize that, since only women can get pregnant, the failure to provide quality maternal care services is discriminatory, as it is a unique and important element of womens' health. The complainants also note the inter-sectional nature of discrimination in maternal health services, as poor women often have even less access to quality care services. The Commission found no violation of Article 4 as they state that it was not demonstrated that the Respondent State had sufficient resources to prevent maternal deaths, or that it had failed to take steps to improve the right to maternal health. The Commission found no violation of Article 16 because they state that the highest attainable standard of health is dependent on the economic capacity of the state. They further state that the 15% budget allocation for the health sector, which the Respondent State agreed to in the Abuja Declaration, is an expression of political will, not a legally binding instrument, and cannot be enforced against the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol because they stated that a causal link between the facts and the alleged violations was not demonstrated. The Commission found no violation of Article 5 because they stated that it was not proven that the omissions of the health service providers had a specific and well-defined objective of humiliating the victims or inducing them to act against their will. Further, they state that it was not established that the acts or omissions of health service providers created feelings of fear, anguish, or inferiority in the victims. The Commission found no violation of Article 2 because, while fees for access to maternity services exist, the Commission states that it was not established the fees were introduced with the particular objective of preventing poor women from accessing maternity services. Regarding the discriminatory requirement that women must have their husband donate blood, or, alternatively, pay a fee, the Commission stated that there was no evidence to establish a violation. The Commission found no violation of Article 3 because they state that it was not established how victims received differential protection by the law and courts of the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Article 9 because they state that it was not shown how the ignorance of Nigerian women about contraception contributed to the risk of maternal mortality, or that the Respondent State played a passive role in providing information. The Commission found no violation of the right to scientific progress because they state that scientific progress has to be available, and it was not established how scientific progress in the Respondent State is available and sufficient to overcome these challenges, or that, if it is available, that it has been made inaccessible to women. The Commission found no violation of Article 7 because they stated that it was not demonstrated that the victims were prevented from seizing the compentent bodies, or that they were denied such an opportunity.

Country

Nigeria

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: May 23, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 16: Right to Health
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 4: Right to Life and Integrity
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Dec 31, 2014 ~ May 23, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: 9.081999

Longitude: 8.675277

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Nigeria

Primary Documents

Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 564/15 - Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape & Alliance Africa v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria

Primary Documents

Notifications