Wakilii

Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 002-2017)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2017] AfCHPR 123 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interpretation of judgment of 3 June 2016 filed by the United Republic of Tanzania under Article 28(4) of the Protocol and Rule 66(1) of the Rules
Decision
Application for interpretation granted with clarification of the meaning of 'all appropriate measures' and 'remedy all violations established'

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 Court interpreted its judgment of 3 June 2016, clarifying that 'all appropriate measures' refers to the release of the applicant or any other measure that would erase the consequences of the violations established, restore the pre-existing situation, and re-establish the applicant's rights. The expression 'remedy all violations established' means to erase the effects of the violations through adoption of such measures. The Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to interpret its own decisions and that the application was admissible.

Outcome

Application for interpretation granted with clarification of the meaning of 'all appropriate measures' and 'remedy all violations established'

Facts

The United Republic of Tanzania filed an application for interpretation of the Court's judgment of 3 June 2016 in Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 007/2013). Tanzania stated it was encountering difficulties implementing the judgment due to varied interpretations by actors in the national criminal justice system. The original judgment had found violations of Abubakari's fair trial rights and ordered Tanzania to take all appropriate measures within a reasonable time to remedy the violations, excluding reopening of the trial, and to inform the Court within six months. Tanzania sought clarification of the expressions 'all appropriate measures' and 'remedy all violations established'. Abubakari responded that Tanzania had filed its implementation report late and only partially complied, and that various remedies were available under Tanzanian law including remission of sentence, conditional release, and presidential pardon. He had already served 20 years of a 30-year sentence.

Issues

  1. What is the meaning of the expression 'all appropriate measures' used in point xii of the operative provisions of the Judgment of 3 June 2016?
  2. What does the Court mean by the expression 'remedy all violations established' given that the acts concerned have already been carried out?

Orders

  • Declared that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant Application.
  • Declared that the Application is admissible.
  • Ruled that by the expression 'all appropriate measures', the Court was referring to the release of the Applicant or any other measure that would help erase the consequences of the violations established, restore the pre-existing situation and re-establish the rights of the Applicant.
  • Ruled that the expression 'remedy the violations established' means 'erase the effects of the violations established' through the adoption of the measures indicated in point iii above.
  • Ruled that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Remedies — Interpretation of Judgment — Jurisdiction of International Court
Under Article 28(4) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Court may interpret its own decision.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Admissibility of Application for Interpretation
An application for interpretation of a judgment can be declared admissible only when it fulfills three conditions: its objective must be to facilitate execution of the judgment; it must be filed within twelve months following delivery of the judgment unless the Court in the interest of justice decides otherwise; and it must clearly state the point or points of the operative provisions on which interpretation is required.
Human Rights — Remedies — Reparation for Violations — General Principle
The principle generally applied by international jurisdictions is that reparation should, as far as possible, erase the consequences of an unlawful act and restore the state which would have presumably existed if the act had not been committed.
Human Rights — Fair Trial Rights — Remedies for Violation — Release as Appropriate Measure
The most appropriate form of remedy for violation of the right to a fair trial is to act in such a way that the victim finds himself in the situation that he would have been in had the violation not been committed. To attain this objective, a state has two options: it should either reopen the case in compliance with the rules of a fair trial or take all appropriate measures to ensure that the applicant finds himself in the situation preceding the violations.
Human Rights — Remedies — Meaning of 'All Appropriate Measures'
The expression 'all appropriate measures' includes the release of the applicant and any other measure that would help erase the consequences of the violations established, restore the pre-existing situation and re-establish the rights of the applicant.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28(4)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 66(1)
  • Rules of Court Rule 66(2)
  • Rules of Court Rule 66(3)
  • Rules of Court Rule 66(4)
  • Rules of Court Rule 30
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania s.45
  • Tanzanian Penal Code CAP 16 s.27(2)
  • Tanzanian Penal Code s.38

Cases cited (1)

  • Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 007/2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 002-2017) [2017] AfCHPR 123 (28 September 2017)
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.