ACHPR
African Commission on
~ Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Court decided negatively for her on 8 January 2013 and upheld the judgment of the
Federal Supreme Court.
44. On Article 56(6), the Complainants
aver: that the complaint
reasonable time. The decision in the First cdmplainant's
2 May 2013 and the Second complainant'sl
was filed within a
Appeal was delivered on the
conviction was upheld by the Cassation
Division of the Federal Supreme Court on tle 8 January 2013. The last court decision
I
.!<"::""'>'"
was handed down only 5 months prior to tre filin~;~t?he'~co!(J-f~;\inton behalf of the
First Complainant and 4 months prior to filing onJ:)e~al(of the ~~~ond Complainant.
45. The Complainants submit that, the presentl C
u~a:fl~r:t:J~·tt~;\.\7itbinthe
sS9pe
of
f.'
~..
,.
-.
Article 56(7) because it has not been settle
The Complainants
regarding both Complainants
do not ~~Q;J.nt to a
Article 56(7) of the Africah'~~C1;tter;
!.:'~:
...
'~::-,\
"
't
admissibility
hAl
",'
"
:,:::;:>
'~''y'',t~,'-~.
it;~··
..
>,~
I,
"
"
t~ment within the meaning of
#:5~::'f,~~;.::+
"
..
and the UN~$CO Committee
46. In light of the for;r~g.~~~?1~~t~e
CoW lcdriant~ stibiriitJ~at
all requirementsjfor
'>,
.
'
ttt~;f~~i~,~~
Com
,,1
•
. , the UN;_~o.J;~ing Group on
Arbitrary Detention regarding
.. 'l<~<~:
0
I
,/_,*
,:{W)"'"
'_
atio~af,~);;t:egio;'_a11~l.echanism.
submit that a cQ~~lai.,
'~,._
.'
their Communication
meets
_': (7
a .Cl:)~~spectfully/requests the Commission make a
~,,~._~-'''~
I
-,
declaration of ci'f~\. issibility and proce~'Ci~iQl~h~'}merits
stage.
.
Submissions
\~::~"i·}7
~t:
\·{~!~i;~!l!f:;\~.
47. The Respondent
•
\1
of the Res >.QpdentState on 1\dm~ssibility
.'~---._.
"
.:.,
.
~. -
'\
' -,
-;
"'~.'."
.:
'<.
,~.
does not comply
I
with:;~~~"".i:eqp.i"rements
\:,
I
Sf~\@\;~~bmitsgen '<ally that the Communication
der Article 56 of the African Charter.
".
:
48. The ResjZ!ondeR,t;·§ta,t~,~ubmitsthat the Communication is improperly brought before
~\',\
/<;-,:
'""'\"'.",;._'~.
'".,~~,~"",
..,.«tj
the African ..~oinmissio,i:.f6r two reasons - first, that it is incompatible with the African
~~~.
I
Charter and.secondly, that the Complainants have not exhausted local remedies. With
,
regards to the-first assertion, the Complainants were charged with and sentenced for
,
,
I
the crime of terrorism which is not covered under the African Charter. With respect
I
I
to the exhaustion
of local remedies, the Respondent
State observes that the First
I
Complainant failed to present the case before the Cassation Division of the Federal
Supreme Court, claiming it would not cohstitute an effective reme~o/.~~~tN
;/);o~
I
!<,,,~
a
o~
(r~'-:""'"~ l~~
claim is unfounded. The Respondent State' submits that local re~'~dfes~anabf~
I
0
~~ U
I
\ Z
I
:
9 IP a ge
'< •• ,...
AUfriG<ln{~n
nlon\:'\..J~'
. .
:
,
'
~'"""
"
0
i.~1
~
o- ".f
i5
The African COmmiS$l~'.!J 0'l,Human M~jPeoplC(.~'
~ ~
31 Bijilo Annex
~ \.
t-.
Rigbts,,>
CI
~
en
L5-.Qu..tt,"i<:ombo.Northi).
iSlrict~
Co~st\Regi6n"'GambYa
'
;,.
c ,
co ... • ~
Phone: (220) 230 40 ..~faX)~~~0b14~5' ~
Email: au-bati)W@afriGCl::unlon.org
httpst/achpr.au.int/O
0 a