Download

Uganda Judgment

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Parish v Indonesia (Communication 38 of 1990) [1990] ACHPR 8 (28 April 1990)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The African Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider communications against States that are not parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As Indonesia is not a party to the Charter, the communication is inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.

Court disposition

communication declared inadmissible

Orders

  • The communication is declared inadmissible.

02

Material facts

Parties

Wesley Parish

Applicant

Indonesia

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Communication / Admissibility

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant alleged illegalities committed by Indonesia and sought the intervention of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Respondent
Indonesia did not submit arguments, as it is not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 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 that is not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The African Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider communications against States that are not parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As Indonesia is not a party to the Charter, the communication is inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.

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

[1990] ACHPR 8

18-28 April 1990 Communication No. 38/90

AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Seventh Ordinary Session 18-28 April 1990

WESLEY PARISH v. INDONESIA

DECISION

Citation: Parish v. Indon., Comm. 38/90, 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 ILLEGALITIES COMMITTED BY INDONESIA

[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 held from 18 to 28 April 1990;

[3] Considering that the communication is directed against a State non-party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights;

[4] Declares the communication inadmissible. (Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure).

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

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights

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.