ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rinhts .
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
began before the State Party ratified the African Charter, have continued after
such ratification»
I
60. As regards alleging a prima facie vioJatio~ of the African Charter (ratione
materiae), the Respo~dent S:ate. con~endslt~at th~ Compla~nants have not made
out a case for the pnma facie violation o~nghts In the Afncan Charter and thus
that the Communication is manifestly jnfOUnded. The Respondent State also
alleges that by seeking to rely on their current allegedly inhumane living
conditions as a basis for their complaint, the Complainants would be basing the
communication on a cause of action that has not",yet been brought before the
domestic courts.
'_'<S;\,
,"':Ii;"
,
\,
61. From the facts and arguments presented, th~"d~rwniss~on observes that the
allegations by the Complainants in the .R~ ;'Co~t{ri~'§ltiS>fl;:.a,:t:~
two-fold: (i)
allegation of the violations of Article~<;~{Yi9
an" ~g~,
of fh~Wrici:i:h,C;~~'t~~l1,
which
are stated to have in fact occurred
.,a resu1j\ of the:,,_i~f'0rted 'acts of the
Municipality - a sub-national ,::g;?ver~~ry~ o~:'i~J.1'e
Resportd~~t State; and (ii)
allegation of the violations of; ~l"'ti<;:les5,'"
8, 19, 22 and '2:4 of the African
Charter, which they co..nt,~.Pdcanrih(j,.,.,e
..•..
,.'
...
' .flW.fil.<:t~,~. ess ..t...
h.e Complainants' right
to housing is fulfilled- ,~hich in tu'r:g~»~ predf ed ~:mthe outcome of the
eV~~~:~,befff~"'('fi;~~
.,.
pendingapPlic~:;{r
Gfts..
o.:
.••..
.
.
.
~j~~r.
62. ~:p~o=~;
.•..•
;.~
..•..•...••.
§,;.r,.·.·
..
t;:O:~~ ~~~~
:.r...•........•.....
p~.•p:~.<'~~:~a:i;:~;n
~~:~:~~s~:~:i::;
either party ~t~
adduce
any evi(le'n~~,
it should be possible
to come to a
conclusion tRa;t the Communicatlo'n~. dm be accommodated
within the
co~pe~ence
~ommission ~p
gro~nds that it alleges that rights
recognized by the"j\f:ncan Charter' ave been VIOlated.
.
~A:~~~
\.
i;;: ,:.':',
"\<::.
-,
<fhF
'{::""'''''''''',',"""".,<;
..
63. In Communication 3 31i20fl6)·;l;,:SouthernAfrica Human Rights NGO Network &
Others, v. tan~iinia". this Commission held that "the Commission is only
concerned with 'whether .there is preliminary proof that a violation occurred",
and there'fsno obligatjon on a complainant to "show with sufficient clarity" the
alleged violations that have triggered thJ submission of a complaint,"
~~
I
'
64. In the present' case, the facts alleged by the Complainants and the attached
documentary 'evidence of the housing si~uation of the Complainants (including
the annexed judgments, the photograplts of the housing and living conditions
8 (2009) AHRLR 9 (ACHPR 2009) para
9
71. Also see
MoLe
v Botsuiana
:!l'/9a)~_QQOl
(Communication
=~~I:;D Pt,-~
ACHPR 25 (6 November 2000).
I
Communication 333/2006 - Soutnem Africa Human ~ights NCO Network & Ot,/i;f~7(p-'tfflnzania 47th<c
Ordinary Session ACmHPR 12-26 May 2010 para 151;Communication 351 ojj7'c'<;t~~rJ
\
(represented by C.abriel Shu~lba) v Rep~blic oj Zimbabwe para 57. Also see A¥fftica~n;(i~~012
~ ~.Ul
Chacha v. The Umted Republlc oJ Tanzania [2014] AfC!' PR 48 (28 March 2014) pa51s 1 9-1~""",
i? ~
4
.\\~
\~
,-;:<.
<q,_
-'Yt,.
~/
0,01>I>-
~
v
(/)
<f }j
S
l'''ag~!_, e>t~l«