000si8
20.The Court therefore had the means of controlling rights unknown to the'
Respondent State and of making them applicable. ln addition, there was a new
legal basis, namely the findings made by the Human Rights Committee and its
orders. The Dexfer case differs from the Court's jurisprudence in Jean-claude
Roger Gombert v. Cote d'lvoire, 22 March 2018.
C. The Dexter case has peculiarities that Jean-claude Roger Gombertls ot
2018 did not have
21. For the Court, the conditions of admissibility provided for in Article 56 of the
Charter are cumulative.
A
condition would be deemed fulfilled only
if
the
application is fully consideredl6. The Court considered that this was not the case
in the instant case, as it was in the recently decided case of Jean-Claude Roger
Gombert- ln the case at bar, the Application did not meet the conditions set forth
in Article 56(7) of the Charter, so the Court declared it inadmissiblelT.
22.
A number of factors immediately show that the Gombert case and the Dexfer
case have different contexts. Gombert concerns the sale of commercial property,
unlike Dexter. Willy-nilly, the urgency and degree of seriousness are not the
same with respect to the issues at stake. This is apparent from the Committee's
request'to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the
measures taken to give effect to the Committee's Views. The State party is also
requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in
the State party."tB This aspect of urgency and time limit could have informed the
Court.
23.Another factor, purely legal, is that the Application should be admissible because
it was possible for the Court to consider that the issue in Dexter, as circumscribed
by the Committee, had not yet been settled. There is still a perpetuation of the
violation and a mandatory death penalty is still part of the domestic law of the
'u AfCHPR, Jean-Claude Roger GomberT v. Repubtic of C1te d'lvoire,28 March 2018. See Joint
Separate Opinion of Judge Ben Kioko and Judge Angelo V. Matusse.
'6ACHPR, Communication No. 27712003, Sp,/S and Others v. Botswana (hereinafter referred to as
<Sp/g v. Botswanat), S 96 and ACHPR, Communication No, 334/06, Egyptian lnitiative for Personal
Rights and tnterights v. Egypt (hereinafter referred to as K Egyptian lnitiative v. Egypb), $ 80.
l7The Court upheld the preliminary ob.iection of inadmissibility under Article 56(7) of the Charter, $ 25,
'u HRC, Dexter Eddie Johnson Communication, supra, $ 10.
8