Wakilii

African Institute For Human Rights and Development v Guinea (Communication 249 of 2002)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2004] ACHPR 59 · 2004 Petition Granted — Violations Found AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of the African Charter arising from treatment of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea
Decision
Violations found; state recommended to establish joint commission to assess losses and compensate victims

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 Commission found Guinea in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5, 12(5) and 14 of the African Charter and Article 4 of the OAU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa. Following President Conté's speech of 9 September 2000, Sierra Leonean refugees were subjected to widespread discrimination, violence, rape, arbitrary detention, looting, and forced return to Sierra Leone. The Commission held that targeting refugees on the basis of nationality constitutes mass expulsion and discrimination prohibited under the Charter. Guinea was recommended to establish a joint commission with Sierra Leone to assess losses and compensate victims.

Outcome

Violations found; state recommended to establish joint commission to assess losses and compensate victims

Facts

On 9 September 2000, Guinean President Lansana Conté delivered a radio speech calling for Sierra Leonean refugees to be arrested, searched, and confined to camps. Following the speech, Guinean soldiers and civilians engaged in widespread abuses against Sierra Leonean refugees including looting, extortion, evictions, beatings, rapes, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and killings. Soldiers targeted refugees at checkpoints based on tribal scars, calloused hands, speaking Krio, or carrying refugee cards, falsely identifying them as rebels. Women were subjected to widespread rape and humiliating strip searches conducted multiple times daily in public. Thousands of refugees were forced to flee back to Sierra Leone during its civil war, and soldiers physically forced refugees onto ferries for deportation. Guinea was hosting nearly 300,000 Sierra Leonean refugees at the time. The abuses occurred in the context of armed attacks on Guinea from elements in Liberia and Sierra Leone in September 2000.

Issues

  1. Whether the requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter applies where refugees face ongoing persecution and life-threatening danger from state officials.
  2. Whether Guinea violated Article 2 of the African Charter by discriminating against Sierra Leonean refugees following President Conté's speech of 9 September 2000.
  3. Whether Guinea violated Article 4 of the African Charter by failing to protect the right to life of Sierra Leonean refugees subjected to killings and violence.
  4. Whether Guinea violated Article 5 of the African Charter by subjecting Sierra Leonean refugees to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment including beatings, rapes, and humiliating strip searches.
  5. Whether Guinea violated Article 12(5) of the African Charter by engaging in mass expulsion of Sierra Leonean refugees on the basis of their nationality.
  6. Whether Guinea violated Article 14 of the African Charter by failing to protect the property rights of Sierra Leonean refugees subjected to looting and confiscation of property.

Orders

  • Communication declared admissible.
  • Republic of Guinea found in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5, 12(5) and 14 of the African Charter.
  • Republic of Guinea found in violation of Article 4 of the 1969 OAU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa.
  • Recommended that a Joint Commission of the Sierra Leonean and Guinea Governments be established to assess the losses by various victims with a view to compensate the victims.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Exception Where Victims Face Life-Threatening Persecution from State Officials
The requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter does not apply where the authorities tasked with providing protection are the same individuals persecuting victims, creating an atmosphere in which domestic remedies are unavailable, particularly where complainants are in a life-threatening situation.
Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Exception for Mass Violations and Impractical Number of Plaintiffs
The requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is impractical and therefore inapplicable where the mass scale of crimes committed against a refugee population would severely overburden domestic courts if even a slight majority of victims chose to pursue legal redress.
Human Rights — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — No Requirement to Return to Place of Persecution
Victims of persecution are not required to return to the country in which they suffered persecution in order to exhaust local remedies.
Human Rights — Non-Discrimination — Mass Expulsion — Targeting on Basis of Nationality
The action of a state targeting specific national, racial, ethnic or religious groups constitutes discrimination prohibited under Article 2 of the African Charter and mass expulsion prohibited under Article 12(5), as it has no legal basis. Mass expulsion occurs where a state's measures result in refugees being forced to return to their home country where their lives and liberty are under threat.
Human Rights — State Responsibility — Incitement by Head of State
A state is directly responsible for violations of the African Charter where a head of state's speech incites soldiers and civilians to engage in large-scale discriminatory acts, harassment, deportations, looting, beatings, rapes, arbitrary arrests and killings against a refugee population, and the government makes no effort to distinguish between refugees and alleged security threats.
Human Rights — Torture and Inhuman Treatment — Rape as Weapon of Discrimination
Widespread sexual violence and rape carried out by state security forces against refugee women, using rape as a weapon to discriminate against and punish refugees, constitutes inhuman treatment in violation of Article 5 of the African Charter and violates the dignity of refugees.
Human Rights — State Obligations — Refugee Protection — National Security Measures
While a state is entitled to prosecute persons believed to pose a security threat and may take measures to protect national security, such measures must not be taken to the detriment of the enjoyment of human rights. Massive violations of the human rights of refugees constitute a flagrant violation of the African Charter notwithstanding legitimate security concerns.

Legislation cited (13)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 12(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 55
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 60
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 61
  • OAU Convention Governing Specific Aspects of the Refugee Problem in Africa Article 4
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 26
  • 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees Article 3
  • 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees Article 9

Cases cited (2)

  • Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (Communications 147/95 and 149/96)
  • Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'Homme v Zambia (Communication 71/92)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

African Institute For Human Rights and Development v Guinea (Communication 249 of 2002) [2004] ACHPR 59 (7 December 2004)
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.