16. The Government of the DRC, through the Minister for Human Rights, acknowledged receipt of
the correspondence from the Secretariat of the African Commission concerning the communication by
th
a letter dated 20 July 2002 and referenced 737 and which was received at the Secretariat on
th
26 December 2002.
nd
17. The DRC delegation to the 32 Ordinary Session of the African Commission held in Banjul, The
th
rd
Gambia, from 17 to 23 October 2002, handed the submissions of the Government on the
admissibility of communication 247/2002 to the Secretariat of the African Commission.
rd
18. The African Commission deferred consideration of the communication to its 33 Ordinary
th
th
Session scheduled for Niamey, Niger, from 15 to 29 May 2003.
nd
19. By Note Verbale and a letter dated 2 December 2002, the Secretariat of the African
Commission informed the parties of the African Commission’s decision and forwarded the documents
submitted by each of the parties.
20. On 31st January 2003, the Complainant sent to the Secretariat written submissions in reply to the
submissions of the Government of DRC.
rd
th
th
21. At its 33 Ordinary Session held from 15 to 29 May 2003 in Niamey, Niger, the African
Commission considered this communication and declared it inadmissible.
Law
Admissibility
22. The Complainant alleges that he did not exhaust local remedies because he was subjected to
moral and material pressure.
23. The Government of DRC submitted that he did not provide proof of the impracticability to exhaust
local remedies while he was in the DRC and in Lomé, Togo, in June 1997.
24. In fact, the Government of DRC explains that local remedies exist and are available and that
even in Togo, the Complainant had the possibility of taking legal action before bringing the matter
before the African Commission.
25. Article 56.5 of the African Charter requires that communications sent to the African Commission
shall be considered if they “ ... are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that
this procedure is unduly prolonged.”
26. Article 56 aims thus at enabling, among others, the Respondent Government to be aware of the
harmful effects of its actions on human rights and look into the possibility of taking corrective
measures before being sued to an international court.
27. As far as the African Commission is concerned, the existence of a local remedy should be both
theoretical and practical, a condition without which the local remedy in question would be neither
available nor effective.
28. Such is the case when, for objective reasons, the Complainant cannot take his case to the courts
of the Respondent State in conditions that guarantee him a fair trial.
29. The African Commission has indeed never admitted that the condition of exhaustion of local
remedies apply ipso facto for receiving a communication, when it finds it illogical to require the
exhaustion of local remedies.
30. To support his allegations relating to the impossibility for him to exhaust local remedies, the
Complainant exhaustively referred to the African Commission’s previous decisions through the
following communications:
•
•
•
•
1
Communication 39/90 Annette Pagnoule on behalf of Abdoulaye Mazou/Cameroon ;
2
Communication 103/93 Alhassan Abubakar/Ghana
3
Communications No. 147/95 and 149/96 ;
Communications (consolidated) 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93 Free Legal Assistance Group,
Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, Union internationale des droits de l’Homme, Les
4
témoins de Jéhovah/Zaire ;