ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
(vi) Response to the decision on admissibility
I
147. By Note Verbale LEG/ ACHPR/COMM/377 /09.23022015 (30107) dated 23
February 2013, the Respondent State ifI dicated to the Commission that the
Government intends to reopen the issue of ~dmissibility in its written and oral
pleadings on the merits of the Complaint 37
148. While acknowledging that the Commission's Rules of Procedure of the
Commission does not allow a reopening of admissibility proceedings, the
Respondent State submitted that lo~al.r,m~dies ~~~:~:,1npt
been exhausted. The
Government argued that the commIss10 did not have'q~l';~hefacts of the case at
its disposal when the d~cision on admiss'bil\~:;~,~s made.~~~terms Of.the. ~eliefs
sought by the Complamants before South AfrIcan, courts, the availability of
sufficient remedies, and the imprac.t:I~ii~!B:~'df~~':ppl'~~ihg·,
..Jhe remaining
remedies.v
.'
>';$. "
"': '''''', "" <",.,_,
......
..."
1
.>
-"~","'\
"
..
,-.
149. In terms of the relief sought b~.}tfieCO"J. ~Jflina<,.;;;
before 'Sq~tl:tAfrican courts,
the Respondent State argu~;9:!t,bf;\~the 1'1:"'" e'~Gofrelief fr0rt,l,"€viction of the
Complainants has not yet been deci(led y
. f the superior courts of South
Africa. The Respondent/State argu~a.'::tliatwhi
part of the eviction claim,
which has. to do the .'p{i~~hfs~of t~~;pr~~;{~y f? ",/ urn ?f ~250 000.00, has
been considered J?y.'{~~eco-qr;~~~
~!'te}subst!arr~I~e
ISSq,~Son eviction are yet to be
decided by th~,,;~ighCb,urt. '<t"
~ "',:" ,>
r
150. The Respond~",n,,;,.,t,
State also ar~)d"t~, ,t 0 m~~:er concerning the violation of
human rights\:I~!scontained in the··~2~}.1 African Constitution was brought
I
be~o~~the cour1!£t:;2~),",
,(j~W <i';>
151. In t~?~s:~,~,theavail'~~~:~i~~,,~Lr,;~5dies,
the Respondent State submitte~ t~~t it is
not s~#I9~ntJor the"';G:Q@:r!J:!;!:ll1ants
merely to show that the possibility of
succeSS:~iS,I()w,:p~'t1:t~:
f,u,rther appeals arel,difficUltor costly. To the Governme~t,
the test-should be,<~het~er the mumcI~al system of the Respondent State IS
reasonably.capable of providing effective relief. As such, the Respondent State
submitted that effective relief is availaBle to the Complainants in the courts
system of theRespondent State.