Wakilii

Abdlhafid v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 033-2018)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 36 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging constitutional violations by Tunisia
Decision
Application dismissed as inadmissible

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights dismissed the application as inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The Applicant filed the application while domestic proceedings were still pending before the Tunisian Administrative Court. The Court held that the requirement to exhaust local remedies is assessed from the date of filing and presupposes not only exhaustion but also knowledge of the outcome. The Court also held that individuals need not demonstrate personal interest to file applications where the respondent state has deposited the Article 34(6) declaration.

Outcome

Application dismissed as inadmissible

Facts

On 11 April 2017, the Tunisian Assembly of the People's Representatives passed Organic Law No. 2017-19 amending the law on the Supreme Judicial Council. Tunisian parliamentarians petitioned the interim constitutional body, which referred the matter to the President due to lack of quorum. The President promulgated the law despite the constitutional challenge. On 25 April 2017, the Speaker convened the Supreme Judicial Council to sit on 28 April 2017. The Applicant, a Tunisian national, filed two cases before the Administrative Court on 26 April 2017: one seeking stay of execution of the Speaker's decision (dismissed on 12 July 2017) and another challenging the decision as illegal and unconstitutional (still pending at the time of filing this application on 12 October 2018). The Applicant alleged violations of his constitutional and human rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant has personal interest to bring proceedings before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the Application infringes on the national sovereignty of Tunisia.
  3. Whether the Applicant exhausted local remedies before filing the Application.
  4. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to remove a judge from the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Orders

  • Objection based on lack of material jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court declared that it has jurisdiction.
  • Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Standing — Personal Interest — African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
Individuals and NGOs are not required to demonstrate personal interest in order to initiate proceedings before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights where the respondent state has deposited the Article 34(6) declaration allowing direct access.
Constitutional Law — Standing — Citizen Interest in Constitutional Compliance
A citizen of a state has direct interest in challenging alleged constitutional violations where the impugned legal instrument concerns all citizens and has direct or indirect impact on their individual rights, given that respect for the constitution is a collective responsibility.
Human Rights — State Sovereignty — International Human Rights Obligations
By acceding to international human rights treaties, state parties establish international jurisdiction on human rights protection and are subject to oversight by international mechanisms. This does not constitute a violation of state sovereignty but rather represents the voluntary commitment by the state to implement international obligations.
Administrative Law — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Timing of International Application
The requirement to exhaust local remedies before bringing proceedings before an international human rights court is assessed from the date of filing the application and presupposes not only exhaustion of local remedies but also knowledge of the outcome. An application filed while domestic proceedings are still pending is inadmissible.
Administrative Law — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Undue Prolongation
Where domestic legal framework does not specify a timeline for judicial determination, a period of one year, four months and fifteen days from filing to the date of international application is reasonable and does not constitute undue prolongation of proceedings within the meaning of the exhaustion of local remedies requirement.

Legislation cited (19)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5(3)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 19
  • Protocol to the African Charter on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • Tunisian Constitution Article 102
  • Tunisian Constitution Article 103
  • Tunisian Constitution Article 109
  • Organic Law No. 2017-19 of 18 April 2017
  • Organic Law No. 2016-34 of 28 April 2016
  • Organic Law of the Judiciary No. 69 of 14 July 1967
  • Tunisian Law No. 72-40 of 1972 Article 40
  • Tunisian Law No. 72-40 of 1972 Article 41
  • Tunisian Law No. 72-40 of 1972 Article 60

Cases cited (7)

  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Communication No. 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, and 100/93, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme, Jehovah Witnesses v. DRC
  • Diakité v Mali (Admissibility and Jurisdiction) (28 September 2017)
  • Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Merits) (5 December 2014)
  • Bauman v France (Application No. 3359/96)
  • Jean Claude Roger Gombert v Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) (22 March 2018)
  • Dexter Eddie Johnson v Republic of Ghana (Application No. 016/2017)
  • S.S. Wimbledon, PCIJ Series A. No.1, p. 25 (1923)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abdlhafid v Republic of Tunisia (Application No. 033-2018) [2021] AfCHPR 36 (25 June 2021)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.