Share
Union Interafricaine des Droits de L'Homme v Togo (Communication 88 of 1993) [1994] ACHPR 9 (27 April 1994)
- Citation
- [1994] ACHPR 9
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Preliminary Notification
- Case number
- Communication 88 of 1993
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Preliminary Notification
- Case number
- Communication 88 of 1993
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantGovernment of Togo
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Preliminary Notification
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the communication regarding alleged human rights violations in Togo is admissible for substantive consideration by the Commission.
- 02
Whether the procedural requirements under the African Charter and the Commission's Rules of Procedure have been satisfied.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
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 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.
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.