ACHPR
African Commission on
~ Human and Peoples' Rights
"
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
r
I
unavailable and i:~ffective such that lhe o~us has shifted to the State to
demonstrate that local remedies were ~vailable and effective.
43. As to Article 56 (6) of the African ChJter,1 the Complainant
the Communication
contends that
has been submitte~ ina timely manner.
44. In relation to Article 56(7) of the Africal Charter, the Complainant submits
that the Communication complies wit I the provisions of the sub-article as
the Communication does not deal wit: a case which has been settled by
any relevant procedure.
Respondent State's submission on Admissibility ,</!,'
45.
'C"
" .:
",
diSt.~~~~~~lnBJ~~t'~_
The R~sp~ndent Sta~e does not
';,'s~rt,ions
regardmg Its satisfaction of the Adrms.~,,~J51htY:l;t'~HU1rerp:c,'11).ts
m'-Art!~le/56 (1)
(3) (4)(6) and (7) of the African Char:tef~:t,.. '.""'Y:,
'-"\':~\.
"'<., .~>,~,~~
..>
;,' "
46. In relation to Article 56(2) ot.th~:S::harter ,
esponde~~:>State submits
that there ~s a re~uirem.~-2J ~hat 'a~!~:Fo .~.:"':'·cat~on submitted "should
prove a pnma facie ... ~Ipl~hon of a>s:p~cIfied '
cle", Hence, the State
argues that. the prese,~: Co~~ni~,~tl~6r!~f,e~ ~o !eet the re~uirem:~t in
the sub-article be<;e:l'use':;the
CqmmUnIaahoff,<faIls to "show with sufficient
clarity. what Vi?-~~tionl";i1dho:W;',~~~,.+ola:i,~~·is. supposed to have been
committed". This, the State contend.~:Is anindication that the "facts do not
fall within the ~~tionae materia~ ol"t!~Yjurisdiction of the Commission".
The Respondent::j:i:.l~aws
the attention
"af the Commission to its decision in
.;?!,:_;t.;':_:~\.
?~'
Chinhamo v ZimbalJlve:~"..
l'i
", ~.,_",.....
, ....,
" ...;
·(~::':"~~'i:,t'·
-~'
r'
<!i,)
,J};'
47. The Re's~?n~~~t-.,,$,~ategiv:s its versilon .of. the facts leading up to the
CommunI<::atI?r.r"al'l.d'~submItsthat the VIctim was summoned and was
represent~~':~~fore"t~,~/parliamentar~
Committee. For that reason, and
because Parliament is empowered by law to impose a fine and
imprisonment'for up to two years, the State argues that the conviction and
sentencing of the Victim were done according to law.
I
I
48. The Respondent argues further that" there has been no violation of Article
14 of the Charter as the land acquisitions were made lin the interest of
public need' for land and "in actordance with the provisions of
appropriate laws". Thus, the State contends that the Communica:loflxGioeL_
not show a prima facie case of any violation and has therefore ', ~Q:\'Cf~~e~
I
4)".o~
~
the requirement in Article 56(2) the Afnican
Charter.
lllC:> <:,"=-C
o~i:'.
'~l)
r'~.'
l~)~
j'(.),
',z
2
Communication 307/2005
h;3
• ~\;
o
~ ......
,.,.,
0
\,
AU-UA
~
~n
~
J2:r~
! (/)~
-
--I
rvC:>~ II
'1.1'/0
" r~~&fafi6§,,=-\)<?vy
~,
't1Mt; ET Dr.'" ?,~:I"'
'...,.,"""
..
'(I.~'~4""~·
~