Share
Alphonse v DRC (Communication 15 of 1988) [1988] ACHPR 1 (8 October 1988)
- Citation
- [1988] ACHPR 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 15 of 1988
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 15 of 1988
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The African Commission found that the communication was inadmissible because it had already been referred to the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 56(7) of the African Charter and Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure prohibit the Commission from considering matters that have been settled or are being examined by another international body. The Commission therefore declined to consider the merits of the complaint.
Court disposition
communication declared inadmissible
Orders
- The communication is declared inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the Charter and Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mpaka-Nsusu Andre Alphonse
ApplicantDemocratic Republic of Congo
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Admissibility
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
Whether the communication is admissible before the African Commission given prior referral to the Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleged false imprisonment and sought redress before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the matter had already been referred to another international body, namely the Human Rights Committee under the ICCPR, rendering the communication inadmissible.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 56(7) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
A communication is inadmissible if it has already been considered by another international body.
- 02
Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
The Rules of Procedure require dismissal of communications previously submitted to another international investigation or settlement body.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The African Commission found that the communication was inadmissible because it had already been referred to the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 56(7) of the African Charter and Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure prohibit the Commission from considering matters that have been settled or are being examined by another international body. The Commission therefore declined to consider the merits of the complaint.
Court disposition
communication declared inadmissible
- The communication is declared inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the Charter and Article 114 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
15/88 : Mpaka-Nsusu Andre Alphonse / DRC
Communication on false imprisonment, dated September 12th 1988
1. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights;
2. Considering that the communication had already been referred for consideration to the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
3. Declares the communication inadmissible [\(Article 56/7](http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/15.88/view/) of the Charter; [Article 114 of the Rules of](http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/15.88/view/) [Procedure\)](http://caselaw.ihrda.org/doc/15.88/view/).
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.