Share
Eugene v USA and Anor (Communication 37 of 1990) [1990] ACHPR 6 (28 April 1990)
- Citation
- [1990] ACHPR 6
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 37 of 1990
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 37 of 1990
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The African Commission declined jurisdiction and declared the communication inadmissible because both respondent states, USA and Haiti, are not parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Commission is empowered to consider communications only against states that have ratified the Charter. As neither USA nor Haiti is a party, the communication fails the admissibility test 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
Georges Eugene
ApplicantUSA
RespondentHaiti
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Admissibility
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the African Commission has jurisdiction over communications against states that are not parties to the African Charter.
- 02
Whether the communication meets the admissibility requirements under the Rules of Procedure.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleges ill-treatment by the USA and Haiti and seeks redress from the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- Respondent
- No arguments from the respondents are recorded, as the matter was disposed of on admissibility grounds.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure; Article 30 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
The African Commission may only entertain communications against states that are parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The African Commission declined jurisdiction and declared the communication inadmissible because both respondent states, USA and Haiti, are not parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Commission is empowered to consider communications only against states that have ratified the Charter. As neither USA nor Haiti is a party, the communication fails the admissibility test 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
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Seventh Ordinary Session 18-28 April 1990
GEORGES EUGENE v. USA, HAITI
DECISION
Citation: Georges Eugene v. USA, Haiti, Comm. 37/90, 7th ACHPR AAR Annex IX (1993–1994)
Publications: Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 344 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001)
ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT BY USA AND HAITI, DATED MARCH 23 1990
- [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 Seventh Ordinary session from 18 to 28 April 1990 in Banjul (The Gambia); - [3] Has taken the following decision: - [4] At its sitting on Wednesday 25 April 1990; - [5] Considering that the communication is directed against States non-party to the African Charter; - [6] 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.