I ~
ACH,PR
• ,-
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
Revisitation of the Commission's admissibility deaision
170. The Respondent State has sought to r~open the issue of admissibility of this
Complaint, despite it having been decided upon by the Commission.w While
conceding that reopening of the admissibility decision is not proper at this stage
of the proceedings, the Respondent StatJ's arguments in support of this attempt
to revisit the Commission' s admissibility decision are based on points already
canvassed at the admissibility stage) namely: the relief sought by the
Complainants in the domestic courts Jf the Respondent State, the domestic
remedies avai~able t~ the Complainants.land the ~~~~r9H~:,Eemedial
options open
to the Complamants in the Respondent State. ,:{:;/ "<, };'"
171. Worthy of note is that the 2010 Rules of b_~~~:,~~ers
,i','!'e ~idance on the
conditiorus) for granting a review, In P_~19cu~~r,~ul~1~P'(~)0~:. des that:
If the Commission has declared a G~fffffiUj1!ic~ti~~:i!hadmiS":~~'b,thisdec o~ may be
reviewed at a later date, upon the/5'ubmission -,Jf ne~v/evidence;<G~/ ai ed in a written
request to the Commission by,t#-{t." hor. '\'.{'!: .....'
'
I'
\l'
1-
-_.;
..,~.
]':
•• ,
172. This means that under t~,~2010 Rules:\]0.f,yrocedtifejofthe Commission, a review
of the Commission' s p,~~l~tonon adIIJ:J§S". ity carv.p(;,cu)',>wherethree conditions
are present: Firstly,.,t]1e 'C2i,:~¢issi, ;'\if:mus,':aye fo{l,ila'that a communication is
inadmissible" i ,:Seconqr the(i~~~~( reqJe~t~!t~~~,~{~e~iew
must be accompanied
by a submission of ne.w ~vid~i;i,S'~,;;';
andi third.~~:~fie
request must come from the
author of the Communication, nof,:the,Respondent State.
11
11
173. :",ssuming th~,~\~p~ndent ~sable t;~tsuch
a request - and the Resp~ndent
IS;n..9table to do.so.in this instance'> 1t IS clear from the Rules that a review of
the'" '" 'ssion'~~C!e9is}onon a,dip.issib~lity is preconditioned on fulfilling the
othert':\'<\ "'v\",,"""._,
:Q§1Dditions;·"hb,afJi$j~tl}El:;~ecisioh
must have been declared inadmissible
' -..".,~:,,_, ..I
by the~\Co~'f?§i,?n,
and the Respondent State must have produced new
eVidence\'h,:::.~6t;;;'0''': - ';' ,
174. The Respoi.1~ent State'submitted that th~ Commission did not have all the facts
at its disposij~, when the decision on admissibility was made. Yet, the facts on
which the Re~~~Sil~e~tState relies in its sfb~ssions hav~ already been .brought
before the CO.inmISSlOnand taken due cpgrusance of. WIth~ut pres~nt~~~~,
and compellmg facts, the Government has merely reIterat~d~,~"t~~~i~~~,
.
f
hi .
f Ioca I reme dile~~W'1:tlcn/',,-.~"'S;)".,,1-l
arguments on t he requirement
0 ex austion 0
sr:
(/<!,li;
!.~' 0
,J
~
r"":~-:"'''
"~'>1.'\'
9 ,0
.·i~"t.""~
01 '
'!r;:,
"':~-~~~.
.,
,J
,
I
,\'
.j,~
':,><\,~
~"t\
G1 ~
,
5 ~" h
0-:
f~:
t'u
(I) _~~
rll-' ,'"i'
~t>. 0' (;JQ
f§ t,
'i'l
0
»to r,
,<-, &y
'§!;?:~'Q.
C: _',/0
;>.'0
",
44
~
~a
.~\'<.
Ji>
~U'.,"t
"_
I
The Ad~sibility
d~cision on this C~m~unication
as adopted in Kigali, Rwanda, durili~t~ai:~~~~~~~O"v ",:
Extra-Ordinary SeSSIonof the Commission held from 20 to 29 July 2014,
1>- " "l'HOf;\~~
,
~-.-~,--.__.,...
Page 34 ofSt