Download

Uganda Judgment

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights

Union Interafricaine des Droits de L'Homme v Togo (Communication 88 of 1993) [1994] ACHPR 9 (27 April 1994)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Commission determined that, in accordance with Article 57 of the African Charter and the relevant Rules of Procedure, it is mandatory to notify the State concerned of any communication and to request a response before proceeding to substantive consideration. The procedural safeguards ensure that the State is aware of the allegations and is afforded an opportunity to present its position. As the Government of Togo had not yet been notified or responded, the Commission decided to bring the communication to the knowledge of Togo and to request a response within two months, deferring substantive consideration to a later session.

Court disposition

notification_to_state_and_request_for_response

Orders

  • The communication is brought to the knowledge of the Government of Togo.
  • The Government of Togo is requested to submit a response within two months of notification.
  • Substantive consideration of the matter is deferred to the sixteenth session.

02

Material facts

Parties

Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme

Applicant

Government of Togo

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Communication / Preliminary Notification

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant alleges violations of human rights by the Government of Togo and seeks the Commission's intervention under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Respondent
At this stage, the respondent has not yet submitted arguments; the Commission is notifying the government and requesting a response.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Article 57 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; Rules 110 and 115 of the Rules of Procedure

    Before substantive consideration, communications must be brought to the knowledge of the State concerned and the State must be given an opportunity to respond.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Commission determined that, in accordance with Article 57 of the African Charter and the relevant Rules of Procedure, it is mandatory to notify the State concerned of any communication and to request a response before proceeding to substantive consideration. The procedural safeguards ensure that the State is aware of the allegations and is afforded an opportunity to present its position. As the Government of Togo had not yet been notified or responded, the Commission decided to bring the communication to the knowledge of Togo and to request a response within two months, deferring substantive consideration to a later session.

Obiter and limits

  • The Commission reiterates the importance of procedural fairness and the right of States to be heard before any substantive determination is made.

Court disposition

notification_to_state_and_request_for_response

  • The communication is brought to the knowledge of the Government of Togo.
  • The Government of Togo is requested to submit a response within two months of notification.
  • Substantive consideration of the matter is deferred to the sixteenth session.

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

[1994] ACHPR 9

AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Fifteenth Ordinary Session 18-27 April 1994

UNION INTERAFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME v. TOGO

DECISION

- BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Prof. Isaac Nguema VICE CHAIRMAN: Prof. Mohammed Hatem Ben Salem COMMISSIONERS: Mr. Sourahata B. S Janneh,, Justice Robert H. Kisanga, Dr. Ibrahim A Badawi EL Sheikh, Prof. U. O Umozurike, Mr. Youssoupha Ndiaye, Dr. Emmanuel E. V. O. Dankwa, Mrs. Vera Valentina Duarte Martins. - Citation: Union Interafricaine Des Droits De L'homme v. Togo, Comm. 88/93, 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 355 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 349 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 316 (ACHPR 1994)

COMMUNICATION ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN TOGO

[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 fifteenth ordinary session held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 18 to 27 April, 1994;

[3] Recalling the provisions of article 57 of the Charter and those of Rules 110 and 115 of the Rules of Procedure which stipulate that prior to any substantive consideration, all communications must be brought to the knowledge of the State concerned;

[4] Decides to bring the communication to the knowledge of the government of Togo and to request it to submit a response within two months of receipt of the notification;

[5] A substantive consideration of the matter shall be undertaken at the sixteenth session" (Article 57 of the Charter, articles 110, 115 and 117 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, Article 57

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Rules 110, 115, 117

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.