Share
Dioumessi and Others v Guinea (Communication 70 of 1992) [1995] ACHPR 7 (7 October 1995)
- Citation
- [1995] ACHPR 7
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 70 of 1992
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 70 of 1992
- 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 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
ApplicantSekou Kande
ApplicantOusmane Kaba
ApplicantGovernment of Guinea
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Admissibility
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the communication is admissible under article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- 02
Whether the lack of the complainants' address renders the communication inadmissible.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Judgment
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.
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.