Share
Abebe v Ethiopia (Communication 10 of 1988) [1988] ACHPR 2 (26 October 1988)
- Citation
- [1988] ACHPR 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Decision
- Case number
- Communication 10 of 1988
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Decision
- Case number
- Communication 10 of 1988
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The African Commission determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the communication because Ethiopia was not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights at the time of the complaint. The Commission's mandate is limited to States that have ratified the Charter, and procedural rules require that communications be directed only against such States. As a result, the communication was declared inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.
Court disposition
communication declared inadmissible
Orders
- The communication is declared inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.
02
Material facts
Parties
Getachew Abebe
ApplicantEthiopia
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction to hear a communication against a State not party to the African Charter.
- 02
Whether the communication is admissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleged false imprisonment and deprivation of property by the respondent State and sought redress under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- Respondent
- No formal argument was recorded from the respondent State; the Commission considered the matter on procedural grounds.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
A communication is inadmissible if directed against a State not party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The African Commission determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the communication because Ethiopia was not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights at the time of the complaint. The Commission's mandate is limited to States that have ratified the Charter, and procedural rules require that communications be directed only against such States. As a result, the communication was declared inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.
Court disposition
communication declared inadmissible
- The communication is declared inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.
Source and reliance status
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Judgment
17-26 October 1988 Communication No. 10/88
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Fourth Ordinary Session 17-26 October 1988
GETACHEW ABEBE v. ETHIOPIA
DECISION
Citation: Getachew Abebe v. Eth., Comm. 10/88, 7th ACHPR AAR Annex IX (1993-1994) Publications: IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoples' Rights Extracted from the Commission's Activity Reports 1994-2001, at 95 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 339 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001)
COMMUNICATION ON FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY, DATED JUNE 1, 1988
- [1] "The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, established under article 30 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; - [2] Meeting at its fourth ordinary session from 17 to 26 October 1988; - [3] Considering that the communication is directed against a State which is not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; - [4] Declares the communication inadmissible" (Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure).
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.