victims to seek protection under the law from authorities involved in the
alleged violations. In such circumstances, internal remedies could not be said
to be available.
45. Based on the alleged serious and massive violations, the Complainant also
requests a derogation of the principle of exhausting local remedies. On this
argument, the Commission refers to its established case law to reiterate the
illusion and futility of exhausting local remedies in cases of serious and largescale human rights violations. Thus, in the cases Malawi African Association
and Others v. Mauritania and Sudan Human Rights Organisation and
Another v. Sudan, the Commission had concluded that the seriousness of the
violations and the large number of victims concerned made the remedies
unavailable and their exhaustion practically useless.9
46. On the specific issue of knowing what constitutes a serious and massive
human rights violation, in the case, The Kenyan Section of the International
Commission of Jurists v. Kenya, the Commission considered both the scale
and the nature of the alleged violations. With regard to the scale, the
Commission then determined that a massive violation is one that affects a
large number of persons, either in a specific region or all over the territory of
a State Party. Concerning the nature, the violation must be the consequence of
continual and pre-determined actions having an impact on a right or a group
of rights under the African Charter.10
47. In this instance, the Commission notes that the alleged violations concern a
large section of the population of the Respondent State, or about 30 percent of
a population of 16 million inhabitants at the time of the events in question.11
Furthermore, the alleged facts were inevitably likely to result in the violation
of the right of recognizing the legal status guaranteed by Article 5 of the
African Charter. In this regard, the Commission critically notes that hundreds
of thousands of persons were affected by the statelessness in Côte d’Ivoire as
a result of the allegations alleged by the Complainant.12
See Malawi African Association et al v. Mauritania Communications 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97,
210/98 (2000) AHRLR 149 (ACHPR 2000) para 85 ; Sudan Human Rights Organisation and Another
Person v. Sudan Communications 279/03 et 296/05 (2009) AHRLR 153 (ACHPR 2009) paras 100-101. See
also Zimbabwean Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe Communication 245/02 (2006) AHRLR 128
(ACHPR 2006) para 69-72.
10 See The Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists v. Kenya Communication 385/10
(ACHPR) 2013, paras 63-64.
11 SeeThe World Bank, Data, ‘Population (Total)’ http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL
(consultd on 24 January 2014).
12 See UNHCR ‘Côte d’Ivoire’ http://www.unhcr.org/4cd969a29.pdf (consulted on 24 January 2014) ;
UNHCR ‘La Côte d’Ivoire fait un grand pas pour éliminer l’apatridie avec l’adhésion aux conventions’
9
11