- _- .....
'.
,
'.
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
application is still pending in the nationa Courts. The Government argued that
until such time as an eviction order is grahted by the domestic courts, no action
has taken place which may violate a right under the African Charter.
51. The Respondent State relied on the dedisions of the Commission in African
Institute for Human Rights and Deoelopment (on behalf of Sierra Leonean Refugees in
Guinea) v. Guineas and [auiara v The Gkmbia,6 to support its argument that
domestic remedies must be exhausted anti that the Commission cannot act as a
court of first instance. It contends tha~ local remedies are available to the
Complainants, and they have not explained whYct~~s~'·remedies would not be
effective or sufficient.
!(r9}'''- ,,< .'
52. The Respondent
State further contends
,the', ecision which the
Constitution~l ~ourt declare~ ~nadmi~~~pl~~
pruy r ~~.t~ . ~~:;~~~plainants'
counter-application to the eviction app,haation,brougfif'Ox the'proR'ert;y>owners
in t~~ S~uth African ~o?rts, an~/tha<~,~ effe~t"'~ofth~·'®~~~tituti~.n~i Court's
decision IS that the deCISIOnofr'~~; Supre~e",C'?;UFtof Appea~?i~J~g,ermgthat the
matter be referred back to the;f~lgJ.tt,;if=oud
ofJ~JQ~Ufh
Africa, statlRl§:
'
"'i;;;:;""
I ....."".
'0/
53. With respect to ArticI,~~~;56(6)
of tfi (Jrica~<21~a~ter, the Respondent State
contended that, assu:wih~,...t~at
'i<SM~s
we~e:~,~~h~iUsted
(which the State
disputes), the Co,D,:1pl~inah. a. . .rot s.Jr15~U,!edt,lje communication within a
reasonable time, Rely:ing or ..''::., decision':'or,;}t1ifeCommission in Majuru v
Zimbabwe, it 'il~erred that the C' d., issior ha~1;£6unda period of six months to
be the international standard in de ."J;rllnlnga "reasonable time" in this regard?
"~"
.>
54. To this end, th~:"State submitted that] e order of the Constitutional Court of
S01;}~~,>Africa
ind1~iit~~that the C9#lpl~i~ants' appeal was dismissed on 7 May
200Q~:i.:::Whileit appear~ th~t/~:'fhe Commission
became seized of the
I
Co~iiniG:~1~8r:. after' 22: 1;_~Qruary2012, which is the date indicated on the
Comrri~l(icatr~~1:!;;~leriod of more tha4 nine months after the Complaina~t' s
appeal ~~~,:cl;ISmISS~,Q.;'lt;,also
contends that there are no good and compelling
reasons
the Co~i~sion
should not apply the six-month timeline, strictly,
loc,:kt
•.••
'"
"1·
•
"
.,., .....
,
/
~~r
in this case::~:,:,::<~
..i'
.
I
55. Furthermore.Hfe
Respondent State contends
that the test under Artiel~'..."
<:'
,
.fZi. y.,v. \'#VJ
lOo I'""
not when the complaint was first submitted to the Commission" ~~~0~~~Tthe ~<<<':",
Commission was first seized of the matte~lf.
~.!? ":>~
~
~ \'\',
_
0 Gl\"i
~(
\)~ g ~l)
\. 't,
tJ !:J /,
.\ ~ ~
c 9." "
11/.5'
~~'v rv~ If!
'\, s:
SION A"P.ICI>' c} Y
(>0
~\).
~.\.y
5 (2004)
AHRLR 57 (ACHPR 2004).
AHRLR 107 (ACHPR 2000).
7 (2008) AHRLR 146 (ACHPR 2008).
6 (2000)
"'"
t:
-<
'0<:::'
:f'
"-';~"."., HOMME £, ""'~'"
~;,",
...~~
.....
Page 10 ofS1