Share
Diawara v Benin (Communication 18 of 1988) [1994] ACHPR 3 (3 November 1994)
- Citation
- [1994] ACHPR 3
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Human Rights Communication / Admissibility Decision
- Case number
- Communication 18 of 1988
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Human Rights Communication / Admissibility Decision
- Case number
- Communication 18 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 complainant had referred his complaint to the courts in Benin, where it was still pending. In accordance with Article 56(5) of the African Charter and Rule 103(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission held that the communication was inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission emphasized that it cannot entertain communications where domestic remedies have not been pursued and concluded, as this would contravene the principle of subsidiarity and respect for national judicial processes.
Court disposition
communication declared inadmissible
Orders
- The communication is declared inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies.
02
Material facts
Parties
Hadj Boubacare Diawara
ApplicantGovernment of Benin
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Human Rights Communication / Admissibility 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 complainant has exhausted local remedies as required under Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleged detention without charge or trial for over seven years, arbitrary detention of others, torture, and death of a co-detainee in prison. He sought redress from the Commission for these violations.
- Respondent
- The Government of Benin appeared and argued that the complainant had referred the matter to the courts in Benin, and that local remedies were still pending, making the communication inadmissible under the Charter.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 56(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
A communication is inadmissible if local remedies have not been exhausted.
- 02
Rules 103(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission
The Commission must decline jurisdiction over matters pending before domestic courts.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The African Commission found that the complainant had referred his complaint to the courts in Benin, where it was still pending. In accordance with Article 56(5) of the African Charter and Rule 103(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission held that the communication was inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission emphasized that it cannot entertain communications where domestic remedies have not been pursued and concluded, as this would contravene the principle of subsidiarity and respect for national judicial processes.
Court disposition
communication declared inadmissible
- The communication is declared inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies.
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
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS
HADJ BOUBACARE DIAWARA
v. BENIN
DECISION
Citation: Hadj Boubacare Diawara v Benin, Comm. 18/88, 8th ACHPR AAR Annex VI (1994-1995)
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 16 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 381 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 23 (ACHPR 1995)
COMPLAINT
[1] The communication No. 18/88, was submitted by Mr. El Hadj Boubacare Diawara. He had been detained without charge or trial from 18 February 1982 for a period of more than 7 years. Furthermore, he reports the arbitrary detention of 7 others, one of whom died in prison 11 months after imprisonment. All detainees, he claimed, were tortured while imprisoned.
FINDING
[2] Notice of hearing were sent to the parties, but only the representative of the Government of Benin appeared. Since the complainant has referred his complaint to the courts in Benin, where it is now pending, the Commission declared the communication inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies, under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rules 103(l)(f) 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.