AFRICAN UNION
UNION AFRICAINE
UNIÃO AFRICANA
AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
COUR AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME ET DES PEUPLES
Application 001/2012 (Review)
Frank David Omary and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania
Separate Opinion of Judge Fatsah Ouguergouz
1.
Although I subscribe to the conclusions of the Court regarding the
inadmissibility of the Application for Review of its Judgment of 28 March 2014,
filed by Messrs Frank David Omary and Others on 28 June 2014, I believe that
the Court should have spelt out more clearly the conditions that must be met for
an Application for Review to be admissible under the Protocol and the Rules. In
this regard, it was incumbent on the Court to clearly pronounce itself on certain
ambiguities on this issue, in the Protocol and in the Rules, and to close the gaps
in these two instruments by specifying the other essential conditions which an
application for revision must meet to be declared admissible.
I – The ambiguities in the Protocol and in the Rules
2.
I would point out, in this respect, that the English and French versions of
Article 28, paragraph 3, of the Protocol do not tally. This is certainly the reason
why one of the three conditions set forth in this paragraph is not identical with
that which is provided for in Rule 67, paragraph 1, of the Rules.
3.
The French version of Article 28, paragraph 3, of the Protocol indeed
allows the Court to revise its judgment in light of new evidence “which was not
within its knowledge at the time the decision was delivered”; 1 the English
version of this paragraph does not, for its part, contain such a condition.2
1
“La Cour peut […] réviser son arrêt, en cas de survenance de preuves dont elle n’avait pas
connaissance au moment de sa décision et dans les conditions déterminées dans le Règlement
intérieur”.
2
“[…] the Court may review its decision in the light of new evidence under conditions to be
set out in the Rules of Procedure”.