contentious issues that need to be analysed in line with the requirement listed in the
Revised Communication Guidelines; these are:
i.
Whether or not the Communication raises matters pending settlement by another
international body;
ii. Whether the Complainants have exhausted local remedies and whether they
should be exempted from exhausting local remedies;
iii. Whether the communication is presented within a reasonable time after exhaustion
of local remedies.
i.
Whether or not the Communication raises matters pending settlement by
another international body
11. Section IX (1) (c) of Revised Communication Guidelines states that a Communication
is admissible if it ‘does not raise matters pending settlement or previously settled by
another international body or procedure in accordance with any legal instruments of
the Africa Union and principles of the United Nations Charter’. The Respondent State
submits that the same issue is raised before the Special Mechanisms of the Human
Rights Council, hence it falls within the exclusionary requirement of ‘matter pending
before another international procedure’. Based on the requirement in Section IX (1)
(c) of the Revised Communications Guidelines and the submission of the Respondent
State, the Committee notes that the key issue of investigation is the nature of the
adjudicating body where the current Communication is pending to be settled, which is
the procedure within the Special Mechanisms of the Human Rights Council.
12. While examining the matter, the Committee notes that understanding the background
importance of having the requirement mentioned above as a condition for considering
the admissibility of a case is crucial. The Committee recognises that States should not
be subjected to similar international and regional judicial or quasi-judicial procedures
on similar alleged violations. The Committee further recognises that having various
international judicial or quasi-judicial organs should not be used to create a hierarchy
among such organs where one can appeal against the other. As stated in the
admissibility ruling of the case Project Expedite Justice and others v The Sudan, the
Committee notes that such requirements under its Guidelines are provided to prevent
conflicting decisions and ensure the efficiency of transnational tribunals.1 Such
admissibility criterion plays a role in ensuring ‘certainty and finality of international
adjudications’.2 The same has been upheld by the African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights, from whose jurisprudence the Committee can draw inspiration in line
with article 46 of the Charter, where the Commission held that the rationale behind
having such requirement of admissibility is ‘to desist from faulting member states twice
for the same alleged violations of human rights….and ensures that no State may be
sued or condemned for the same alleged violation of human rights’.3 The Committee
further reiterates the Commission’s elucidation that the requirement is a principle that
1
ACERWC, Communication No 0011/Com/001/2018, Decision on Admissibility No 01/2019, Project
Expedite Justice and others v The Sudan, para 33.
2 Frans Viljoen, ‘International Human Rights Law in Africa,’ 2012, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 321.
3 ACHPR, Communication 260/2002, Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon, (2004), para 52.
JN
6