Wakilii

Amnesty International and Another v Sudan (Communication 48 of 1990; Communication 50 of 1991; Communication 52 of 1991; Communication 89 of 1993)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · Amnesty International and Another v Sudan (Communication 48 of 1990; Communication 50 of 1991; Communication 52 of 1991; Communication 89 of 1993) [2018] ACHPR 11 (15 November 2018) · 2018 Communications Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Four consolidated communications alleging human rights violations in Sudan between 1989 and 1993, brought before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision
Communications upheld; Sudan found in violation of multiple Charter provisions and recommended to cease violations and comply with Charter obligations

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 Sudan violated Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7.1(a), (c), (d), 8, 9, 10 and 26 of the African Charter through systematic human rights abuses between 1989 and 1993, including extra-judicial executions, torture, arbitrary detention, denial of fair trial through special courts lacking independence, persecution of non-Muslims, and suppression of freedom of expression and association. The Commission held that local remedies need not be exhausted where they are ineffective or non-existent, and that emergency legislation permitting arbitrary detention and special tribunals violated Charter guarantees.

Outcome

Communications upheld; Sudan found in violation of multiple Charter provisions and recommended to cease violations and comply with Charter obligations

Facts

Between 1989 and 1993, following a coup in Sudan on 30 July 1989, hundreds of persons were arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial under emergency legislation. Decree No. 2 of 1989 permitted detention of anyone suspected of being a threat to security, with no judicial challenge permitted. Political prisoners were held in secret detention centres known as 'ghost houses' and subjected to widespread torture including beatings, electric shocks, mock executions, and deprivation of basic needs. Thousands of civilians were killed in extra-judicial executions, particularly in southern Sudan during the civil war and in counter-insurgency operations. Special tribunals and Revolutionary Security Courts were established with limited appeal rights and no guarantee of legal representation. Over one hundred judges opposed to these courts were dismissed. Non-Muslims, particularly Christians in southern Sudan, faced persecution including harassment of clergy, closure of churches, arbitrary arrests, and denial of access to work and food aid. The 1983 Penal Code permitted death sentences for numerous offences, and 28 army officers were executed on 24 April 1990 without legal representation. Shari'a law was applied as national law, affecting non-Muslims. Political opposition and assemblies were prohibited under emergency legislation.

Issues

  1. Whether Sudan violated the right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter through extra-judicial executions and summary trials.
  2. Whether Sudan violated the prohibition on torture and inhuman treatment under Article 5 of the African Charter.
  3. Whether Sudan violated the right to liberty and security under Article 6 of the African Charter through arbitrary arrests and detentions.
  4. Whether Sudan violated the right to fair trial under Article 7 of the African Charter through the establishment of special courts and denial of legal representation.
  5. Whether Sudan violated the right to freedom of religion under Article 8 of the African Charter through persecution of non-Muslims.
  6. Whether Sudan violated the right to freedom of expression under Article 9 of the African Charter through blanket restrictions on political opposition.
  7. Whether Sudan violated the right to freedom of association under Article 10 of the African Charter through prohibition of political assemblies.
  8. Whether Sudan violated the duty to guarantee judicial independence under Article 26 of the African Charter through dismissal of judges and establishment of non-independent tribunals.
  9. Whether the requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56.5 of the African Charter applies where remedies are ineffective or non-existent.
  10. Whether the African Commission has jurisdiction over violations occurring after Sudan's ratification of the African Charter on 21 October 1986.

Orders

  • Communications declared admissible.
  • Sudan found to have violated Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7.1(a), (c), (d), 8, 9, 10 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  • Sudan strongly recommended to put an end to these violations in order to abide by its obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Serious and Massive Violations
In cases of serious and massive human rights violations, the requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56.5 of the African Charter does not apply literally where it is impractical or undesirable for complainants to seize domestic courts, or where the procedure would be unduly prolonged due to the seriousness of the situation and the numbers of people involved.
Admissibility — Effectiveness of Remedies — Special Tribunals
Internal remedies that do not fulfil conditions of effectiveness or are non-existent need not be exhausted; where legislation ousts the jurisdiction of regular courts in favour of special tribunals and prohibits legal action against decisions made under emergency decrees, such remedies are ineffective and their exhaustion is not required.
Right to Life — State Responsibility for Extra-Judicial Executions
A state has a responsibility to protect all people residing under its jurisdiction; even where extra-judicial executions are not all the work of government forces, the state must take all possible measures to ensure civilians are treated in accordance with international humanitarian law, and investigations into such killings must be carried out by entirely independent individuals with findings made public and prosecutions initiated.
Prohibition of Torture — Incommunicado Detention
Holding an individual without permitting contact with family and refusing to inform the family if and where the individual is being held constitutes inhuman treatment of both the detainee and the family concerned, in violation of Article 5 of the African Charter.
Fair Trial — Independence and Impartiality of Tribunals
Special courts whose composition is determined by the President or military officers, consisting of military officers or other persons appointed at executive discretion, lack the guarantee of impartiality required by Article 7.1(d) of the African Charter; the composition alone creates the impression, if not the reality, of lack of impartiality and violates the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal.
Fair Trial — Right to Counsel of Choice
The right to freely choose one's counsel is essential to the assurance of a fair trial; giving a tribunal the power to veto the choice of counsel or requiring the accused's choice to be subject to the court's assent constitutes an unacceptable infringement of the right to be defended by counsel of one's choice under Article 7 of the African Charter.
Religious Freedom — Application of Religious Law to Non-Adherents
It is fundamentally unjust that religious laws should be applied against non-adherents of the religion; tribunals that apply only Shari'a are not competent to judge non-Muslims, and everyone should have the right to be tried by a secular court if they wish, as the application of religious law in a manner causing discrimination violates Articles 2 and 8 of the African Charter.

Legislation cited (26)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • 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 6
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7.1(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7.1(b)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7.1(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7.1(d)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 8
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9.2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10.1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56.5
  • Sudanese Transitional Constitution 1985 Article 21
  • Sudanese Decree No. 2 of 1989
  • Sudanese Decree No. 2 of 1989 s.9
  • Sudanese National Security Act 1990
  • Sudanese Penal Code 1983
  • Sudanese Penal Code 1983 s.47
  • Constitution of Special Tribunals Act 1989 s.3
  • Process and Transitional Powers Act 1989 s.7

Cases cited (6)

  • communications 16/88, 17/88, 18/88, 25/89, Legal Assistance Group vs/ Zaire
  • 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93 World Organisation Against Torture, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, International Commission of Jurists and Inter-African Human Rights Union vs/ Rwanda
  • ACHPR/25/89: 53-54
  • ACHPR/74/91: 93, Union des Jeunes Avocats vs/Chad
  • ACHPR/59/91, ACHPR/60/91, ACHPR/64/91, ACHPR/87/93 ACHPR/101/93
  • ACHPR/101/93: 25, Civil Liberties Organisation vs/Nigeria

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Amnesty International and Another v Sudan (Communication 48 of 1990; Communication 50 of 1991; Communication 52 of 1991; Communication 89 of 1993) [2018] ACHPR 11 (15 November 2018)
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.