Share
Ntaka v Lesotho (Communication 33 of 1989) [1988] ACHPR 18 (26 October 1988)
- Citation
- [1988] ACHPR 18
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 33 of 1989
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 33 of 1989
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The African Commission determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the communication because Lesotho was not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Rules of Procedure explicitly require that communications be directed against States that are parties to the Charter. As Lesotho had not ratified or acceded to the Charter, the Commission declared the communication inadmissible under Article 101 of its 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
Simon B. Ntaka
ApplicantLesotho
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Admissibility
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction to consider a communication against a State not party to the African Charter.
- 02
Whether the communication meets the admissibility requirements under the Rules of Procedure.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleged infringement of the right to free movement and submitted a communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- Respondent
- Lesotho did not submit arguments as the communication was dismissed at the admissibility stage due to lack of jurisdiction.
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 which is not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The African Commission determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the communication because Lesotho was not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Rules of Procedure explicitly require that communications be directed against States that are parties to the Charter. As Lesotho had not ratified or acceded to the Charter, the Commission declared the communication inadmissible under Article 101 of its 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. 33/89
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Fourth Ordinary Session 17-26 October 1988
SIMON B. NTAKA v. LESOTHO
DECISION
Citation: Ntaka v. Lesotho, Comm. 33/89, 7th ACHPR AAR Annex IX (1993-1994) 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 150 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 343 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001)
COMMUNICATION ON INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO FREE MOVEMENT, DATED JANUARY 14, 1974
- [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 held from17 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.