ACHPR
African Commission on '
Human and Peoples' ~ights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
I
I
57. Article 56(2) provides that a Commu+ica~ion should be compatible with
the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity (now the AU Constitutive
Act) or the African Charter. The CO~ission
notes that the provision is to
be read conjunctively to mean that a Communication
should be
compatible with both the AU Constithtive Act and the African Charter.
The Respondent State contends that tHe present Communication does not
satisfy this condition because it shotvs no prima facie violation of the
African Charter.
l
58. It is also the Respondent State's argu ent that}~;~I~o~unication
does
not show with sufficient clarity what fights ~aye bee11:}'i}olatedand how
those rights have been violated by the State>Th~. Complainant responds
that the requirement is for a Comrnuriication to';' d~jnppSb:ate .that African
Charter protected rights may have be~hfViol~~~5:J,bY\4,e~B.esPbnd~4tState.
'1-"s<;fri~[::;\r:>,
0&"
'\~;:i~~-,":
'>~, .
'Y,h has helQ',fhat as used in
Article 56(2) of the African Cl:\att@~~"thJ
ter
patible".,iri~ans to be "in
compliance with": or "in., confo'r:~t% wit " r "not contrary to" or
"against" the AU Constittrtive Act or~)jPll~:
Chart
,.;peCommission notes
that there are two pa'rts;;t~~:if\rticl~~,
516~+» of th ':"harter. The first part
requires that a C9guriU;n~~atio:b."'$Q,ouldl
not contradict or be contrary to the
?rinciples of t~7-/I.U Constitutiv~:'~~~'IThis si~p~y means that the claim(s)
In a ~o~uru~~tl0n
should not o£l~n~;rhe spirit and purp?se. of the AU
Constitutive Ac,t;;::;rhesecond pa]\t reqjnres that a Communication should
allege a violatiorlirg:£;,a
right or rigpts
rJcognized in the African Charter. In
.,....,.';'.
"I
other\;yyords, the daifu;Jn a Comjfumidation should conform with and not
59. In a number of earlier decisions.fhe
contralq,~;:;th~~~~~,ts
ih~~1~~nteel~
in the Charter.
60. The Corrlipisstqn':h~~~gl~()'previously Held that Article 56(2) of the Charter
k
requires a ':¢9hununis¥tf~n to indicate prima facie violation of the African
Charter." T'l;t~ Respondent State contends that this obligates the
Complainantfo show with sufficient c]arity what violations have occurred
and how thoseviolations have occurr~d. The Commission notes that the
term prima facie as used in its jurisprudence does not impose an obligation
to "show with sufficient clarity" the alleged violations that have triggered
the submission of a complaint. InstJad, the Commission notes that it
simply requires that at face value lor upon mere sighting, without
requiring either p£rty to adduce any: evidence, it should be possible to
I
See Communication 252/2002 -Bissangou v Repubtic of Congo (2006) ACHPR; CoIJ}.~:'l.
-Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (2007) ACHPR; Communidation 246/2002 - Mouveme,.:fI~'bii'[e~ de. 4r
1
,
~
Droits rllumains (MIDH) v COte d'Ivoire(2008) AGHPR
!~
".....
9See Communication 300/2005 - Social and EconorlticRights Action Project (S: z P) N~~~
(2008) ACHPR, para38.
o
8
lit,
~
'l_ ~
I
-~
t::Jl/
AU-UA
0
"~~
',~e'1
"'0
55
~o-<>\
< ,
~,\,
-g ~ ~
£!l~, ~~
tp"
0
<§="
~'V
0,
<&.
(-'.:, ~ 4"'RICP.\~ ,,:--0(/., '" •
~,..:.Oil1I'VtE ET o~s\',
.
.~~~.~.,.
'"
•
'/;'