Share
Vitine v Cameroon (Communication 106 of 1993) [1994] ACHPR 8 (27 April 1994)
- Citation
- [1994] ACHPR 8
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Final Decision
- Case number
- Communication 106 of 1993
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Posture
- Communication / Final Decision
- Case number
- Communication 106 of 1993
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Commission declined to consider the communication on the basis that it did not meet the admissibility requirements set out in article 55 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As a result, the Commission decided not to take up the matter, and no further action was taken regarding the applicant's requests.
Court disposition
communication not admitted
Orders
- The Commission declines to take up the matter under article 55 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
02
Material facts
Parties
Amuh Joseph Vitine
ApplicantGovernment of Cameroon
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Communication / Final Decision
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Commission should intervene to protect the applicant's life from alleged persecution by the government of Cameroon.
- 02
Whether the Commission should appeal to the governments of Senegal and Niger to grant the applicant refugee status.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant requested the Commission to intervene to save his life and to prevail upon the government of Cameroon to cease its pursuit of him. He further sought the Commission's assistance in appealing to the governments of Senegal and Niger to grant him refugee status.
- Respondent
- No formal argument from the respondent is recorded in the decision.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Article 55, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
The Commission may only consider communications that meet the requirements of article 55 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Commission declined to consider the communication on the basis that it did not meet the admissibility requirements set out in article 55 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As a result, the Commission decided not to take up the matter, and no further action was taken regarding the applicant's requests.
Court disposition
communication not admitted
- The Commission declines to take up the matter under article 55 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
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
Undated Communication No. 106/93
AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS
AMUH JOSEPH VITINE v. CAMEROON
DECISION
[Citation: Vit](http://www.worldcourts.com/achpr/eng/decisions/Undated_Vitine_v_Cameroon.htm)ine v. Cameroon, Comm. 106/93, 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 61 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 350 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 55 (ACHPR 1994)
COMMUNICATION ON WRONGFUL PERSECUTION.
FINAL DECISION
[1] Mr. Amuh Joseph wants the Commission to save his life and prevail on the government to stop the hunt against him. He also wants the Commission to appeal to the government of Senegal and Niger to grant him refugee status.
[2] The Commission applied article 55 and decide not to take up the matter.
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.