Share
Sakwe v Cameroon (Communication 230 of 1999) [2000] ACHPR 26 (6 November 2000)
- Citation
- [2000] ACHPR 26
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Human Rights Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 230 of 1999
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Human Rights Communication / Admissibility
- Case number
- Communication 230 of 1999
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Commission found that the complainant did not demonstrate exhaustion of domestic remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. Despite repeated requests, neither party provided additional information regarding the exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission concluded that, on the face of the complaint and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the admissibility requirement was not satisfied. Therefore, the communication was declared inadmissible.
Court disposition
communication declared inadmissible
Orders
- The communication is declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
02
Material facts
Parties
Motale Zacharia Sakwe
ApplicantRepublic of Cameroon
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Amount Paid for Release: XAF 6,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Human Rights Communication / Admissibility
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the complainant exhausted local remedies before approaching the Commission.
- 02
Whether the alleged violations of Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the African Charter are admissible for consideration.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleges abduction, unlawful detention, torture, and extortion by state officials, resulting in physical and psychological harm. He claims neither he nor his mother were informed of any charges or the nature of their alleged offences, nor were they brought before a competent authority. He asserts violations of Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the African Charter and seeks redress from the Commission.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not submit arguments or additional information on the issue of exhaustion of local remedies, despite repeated requests and reminders from the Commission. The respondent appealed for adjournment, citing inability to meet the deadline for submissions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 56(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
Communications must be considered only after exhaustion of local remedies, unless such remedies are unduly prolonged.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Commission found that the complainant did not demonstrate exhaustion of domestic remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter. Despite repeated requests, neither party provided additional information regarding the exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission concluded that, on the face of the complaint and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the admissibility requirement was not satisfied. Therefore, the communication was declared inadmissible.
Court disposition
communication declared inadmissible
- The communication is declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
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 Twenty-Eighth Ordinary Session 23 October – 6 November 2000
MOTALE ZACHARIA SAKWE v. CAMEROON
DECISION
BEFORE: Citation: Publications: CHAIRMAN: E. V. O. Dankwa VICE CHAIRMAN: K. Rezag-Bara COMMISSIONERS: A. Badawi El Sheikh, Isaac Nguema, N. Barney Pityana, H. Ben Salem, Florence Butegwa, A. Raganayi Chigovera, Vera M. Chirwa, Jainaba Johm [Motale Zacharia Sakwe v. Cameroon, Comm. 230/99, 14th ACHPR AAR](http://www.worldcourts.com/achpr/eng/decisions/2000.11_Motale_Zacharia_Sakwe_v_Cameroon.htm) [Annex V \(2000-2001\)](http://www.worldcourts.com/achpr/eng/decisions/2000.11_Motale_Zacharia_Sakwe_v_Cameroon.htm) 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 69 (2002); (2000) AHRLR 64 (ACHPR 2000)
RAPPORTEUR
25th Session: Commssioner Dankwa
26th Session: Commssioner Dankwa
27th Session: Commssioner Dankwa
28th Session: Commssioner Dankwa
SUMMARY OF FACTS
- 1. The Complainant is Motale Zacharia Sakwe, a citizen of Cameroon. - 2. The complaint was received at the Secretariat of the Commission on 4th January 1999.
3. The complaint contains various information on the general state of human rights in Lobe Town Community between 30th December 1996 and 27th September 1998. In the relevant part however, the Complainant alleges that on 15th December 1996, at 1.30 a.m. in the night, he was abducted from his house by the Divisional Officer for Mbonge Sub-Division accompanied by well armed police and gendarmes officers. The same officers at the same time and in the same way and manner also abducted the Complainant's mother.
4. The Complainant also alleged that he was taken to the Police Post at Mbonge and subsequently detained for three days.
5. His aged mother was also detained at the Gendarme's Office for three days.
6. The Complainant alleges further that during the detention, he was tortured by being made to roll on the ground after being soaked with water and sleeping under the sun for 12 hours, while his aged mother was stripped naked and dumped into a pit.
7. The Complainant contends that as a result of the aforementioned treatments, he has severe pains in his eyes, on his ribs and acute headaches.
8. On 17th December 1996, the Complainant alleges that he was summoned to the Divisional Officer's office and asked to pay six thousand francs (6,000CFA) before being released, to which he complied.
9. Throughout the period of their detention, they were not informed of the nature of their offences, neither were they charged for the commission of any crime.
COMPLAINT
10. The Complainant alleges violation of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the African Charter
PROCEDURE
11. At its 26th ordinary session in Kigali, Rwanda, the Commission decided to be seized of the communication and requested parties to furnish it with additional information on the issue of exhaustion of local remedies.
12. On 24th January 2000, the Secretariat informed parties of the above decision.
13. On 16th February 2000, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the Embassy of the Republic of Cameroon in Dakar, informing it that the Note Verbale and document attached had been forwarded to the Cameroonian Ministry of External Relations for due consideration.
14. At its 27th ordinary session held in Algeria, the Commission examined the case and deferred its further consideration to the 28th ordinary session to enable the competent authorities of Cameroon respond to its request for additional information on the issue of exhaustion of local remedies.
15. The decision was communicated to the parties on 12th July 2000.
16. On 28th August 2000, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the Embassy of the Republic of Cameroon in Dakar acknowledging receipt of the above letter, but pointing out that it would not
be able to meet the deadline for submission of the arguments on the admissibility of the case. It therefore appealed for the case to be adjourned to the next session.
17. On 30th August 2000, the Secretariat replied to the said Note Verbale pointing out that the request for such information had already been communicated to the competent authorities of Cameroon on two separate occasions, to which they had acknowledged receipt. Regarding their appeal for adjournment, it was indicated that it was the prerogative of the Commission to take such a decision, but promised to convey the request to the Commission accordingly.
LAW
ADMISSIBILITY
18. Article 56 (5) of the Charter provides: Communications…shall be considered if they: … are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless, it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged.
19. On the surface of the complaint, it appears that the Complainant did not exhaust domestic remedies. The Commission noted further that the parties did not respond to its requests for additional information on the issue of exhaustion of local remedies, despite repeated reminders.
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS
The Commission declares the communication inadmissible.
Done at the 28th session held in Cotonou, Bénin 23rd October to 6th November 2000.
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.