Share
Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers v Yugoslavia (Communication 3 of 1988) [1988] ACHPR 3 (26 October 1988)
- Citation
- [1988] ACHPR 3
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Final Decision
- Case number
- Communication 3 of 1988
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Final Decision
- Case number
- Communication 3 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 Yugoslavia was not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As such, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the communication. The procedural rules require that only communications against States Parties to the Charter are admissible. The communication was therefore 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
Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
ApplicantYugoslavia
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Final Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the communication is admissible before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- 02
Whether the respondent State is a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleged deprivation of the right to practice a profession, seeking redress under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- Respondent
- The respondent State did not submit arguments, as the matter was disposed of 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 it is directed against a State that is not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The African Commission found that Yugoslavia was not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As such, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the communication. The procedural rules require that only communications against States Parties to the Charter are admissible. The communication was therefore 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. 3/88
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Fourth Ordinary Session 17-26 October 1988
CENTRE FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS v. YUGOSLAVIA
DECISION
Citation: Ctr. for the Independence of Judges & Lawyers v. Yugo., Comm. 3/88, 7th ACHPR AAR Annex IX (1993-1994)
Publications: Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 337 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001)
COMMUNICATION ON ALLEGED DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE A PROFESSION
FINAL DECISION
- [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.