Download

Uganda Judgment

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Dioumessi and Others v Guinea (Communication 70 of 1992) [1995] ACHPR 7 (7 October 1995)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The African Commission found that the communication was inadmissible because it did not meet the requirements of article 56 of the African Charter. Specifically, the complainants failed to provide their address, making it impossible for the Commission to send notifications or further correspond with them. Despite repeated efforts by the Secretariat to obtain this information, the deficiency was not remedied. The absence of this essential information precluded the Commission from proceeding to consider the merits of the communication, regardless of the substantive allegations of rights violations. The Commission thus declared the communication inadmissible on procedural grounds.

Court disposition

communication declared inadmissible

Orders

  • The communication is declared inadmissible.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ibrahima Dioumessi

Applicant

Sekou Kande

Applicant

Ousmane Kaba

Applicant

Government of Guinea

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Communication / Admissibility

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants allege that following the 1984 coup d'etat in Guinea, they were arrested, tortured, and detained for three years without charge or trial, violating their rights to security of person and to a fair trial. They seek compensation for moral and material harm suffered.
Respondent
The Government of Guinea did not submit a memorandum or substantive response to the communication despite repeated reminders and requests from the Commission.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 56, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

    A communication must fulfill all the conditions of article 56 of the African Charter, including the identification and address of the complainants for notification purposes.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The African Commission found that the communication was inadmissible because it did not meet the requirements of article 56 of the African Charter. Specifically, the complainants failed to provide their address, making it impossible for the Commission to send notifications or further correspond with them. Despite repeated efforts by the Secretariat to obtain this information, the deficiency was not remedied. The absence of this essential information precluded the Commission from proceeding to consider the merits of the communication, regardless of the substantive allegations of rights violations. The Commission thus declared the communication inadmissible on procedural grounds.

Court disposition

communication declared inadmissible

  • The communication is declared inadmissible.

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.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Judgment

[1995] ACHPR 7

7 October 1995 Communication No. 70/92

AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Eighteenth Ordinary Session 2-11 October 1995

IBRAHIMA DIOUMESSI, SEKOU KANDE, OUSMANE KABA v. GUINEA

DECISION

BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Prof. Isaac Nguema

VICE CHAIRMAN: Prof. Emmanuel V. O. Dankwa COMMISSIONERS: Mr. Robert H. Kisanga, Dr. Mohamed H. Ben Salem Dr. Vera V. Duarte Martins, Prof. U. Oji Umozurike, Mr. Atsu Koffi Amega, Mr. Kamel Rezzag-Bara, Mrs. Julienne Ondziel-Gnelenga

Citation: Dioumessi v. Guinea, Comm. 70/92, 9th ACHPR AAR Annex VIII (1995- 1996) 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 138 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 448 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 130 (ACHPR 1995)

THE FACTS

- 1. The communication was submitted by Ibrahima Dioumessi, Sekou Kande, Ousmane Kaba, and received by the Commission on 15 November 1991. It contains no mailing address for the complainants. - 2. The communication alleges that following the coup d'etat of 4 July 1984 in Guinea, the complainants were arrested, tortured and incarcerated for three years without charge or trial. - 3. The complainants allege violation of the right to security of persons and the right to fair trial. The former detainees request compensation for the moral and material prejudice they have suffered.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4. The Commission was seized of the communication at its 12th Session in November 1992.

- 5. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Guinea was notified on 13 November 1992. The Secretariat also requested the complainants' address. - 6. In 1993 and 1994, numerous reminders were sent by the Secretariat to the Government of Guinea, but no response was received. - 7. On 21 October 1994, the Guinean Government sent a note verbale to the Commission requesting that the Commission delay consideration of the communication until the 17th Session, in order to allow the government to submit its memorandum in response. - 8. At the 17th Session in March 1995, the memorandum of the Government of Guinea had not been received, but it was decided to wait for it, and in the meanwhile to ask the complainants if they had exhausted all domestic remedies. - 9. All attempts to get the addresses of the complaints were of no avail. - 10. At the 18th Session, the memorandum of the Government of Guinea still had not been received.

THE LAW

ADMISSIBILITY

11. The problem posed here is one of admissibility. To be admissible, a communication must fulfill all the conditions of article 56 of the Charter, in particular, the identity of the complainants so that they may be sent notifications.

12. In the present case, the Secretariat has not been able to remedy this lack of the complainants' address.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION declares the communication inadmissible.

Taken at the 18th Ordinary Session, Praia, Cape Verde, 7 October 1995.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 56

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this JurisAssist collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.