Wakilii

Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and Another v Cameroon (Communication 272 of 2003)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2009] ACHPR 101 · 2009 Communication Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission alleging violations of the African Charter arising from post-electoral violence and failure to provide effective remedy
Decision
Communication upheld; State of Cameroon found in violation of the African Charter and ordered to pay compensation to victims of post-electoral violence

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 held that Article 1 of the African Charter imposes an obligation of result on States Parties, requiring them to take measures that produce concrete results in protecting human rights. Cameroon violated Articles 1, 2, 4, 7 and 14 by failing to prevent foreseeable post-electoral violence in 1992 despite early warning signs, and by failing to provide effective remedy through its courts. The State cannot invoke force majeure where events were predictable. Cameroon must pay fair and equitable compensation to victims.

Outcome

Communication upheld; State of Cameroon found in violation of the African Charter and ordered to pay compensation to victims of post-electoral violence

Facts

Following the 1992 presidential elections in Cameroon, members of the opposition Social Democratic Front attacked symbols of the State and militants of the ruling party in Bamenda on 23 October 1992. Property was destroyed and individuals suffered physical attacks, with damages estimated at over 5.8 billion CFA francs. Cameroonian authorities arrested suspects and established a compensation committee in February 1993, but no compensation was paid. Victims brought an appeal for State responsibility to the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court in March 1998, but the case remained frozen for over five years despite procedural rules requiring closure within five months of exchange of pleadings. The victims then filed a communication with the African Commission in April 2003.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication was admissible despite the case remaining pending before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cameroon for five years.
  2. Whether Article 1 of the African Charter imposes an obligation of diligence or an obligation of result on States Parties.
  3. Whether the State of Cameroon violated Articles 1, 2, 4, 7 and 14 of the African Charter by failing to prevent post-electoral violence in 1992 and by failing to provide effective remedy and compensation to victims.
  4. Whether the State of Cameroon could invoke force majeure to escape liability for the post-electoral violence.

Orders

  • Communication declared admissible.
  • The provisions of Article 1 of the African Charter impose on States Parties an obligation of result.
  • The State of Cameroon failed in its general obligation as set forth and sanctioned under Article 1 of the African Charter.
  • The State of Cameroon is held responsible for the violation of Articles 2, 4, and 14 of the African Charter.
  • The State of Cameroon violated the provisions of Article 7 of the African Charter.
  • The State of Cameroon is recommended to take all necessary measures for guaranteeing the effective protection of human rights at all times.
  • The State of Cameroon is recommended to pursue its commitment to give fair and equitable compensation to the victims without delay.
  • The amount of compensation for damages and interest is to be fixed in accordance with applicable laws.

Rules and key headnotes

State Obligations — Article 1 African Charter — Obligation of Result versus Obligation of Diligence
Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights imposes an obligation of result on States Parties, not merely an obligation of diligence. States must take measures that produce concrete results in protecting human rights, not simply deploy available resources without guaranteeing outcomes.
State Responsibility — Positive Obligation to Prevent Human Rights Violations by Non-State Actors
A State's failure to prevent human rights violations by private individuals, where the State knew or should have known of imminent risks and failed to take necessary preventive measures, constitutes a violation of the African Charter attributable to the State even where the State itself did not directly perpetrate the violations.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Undue Prolongation
Where a case has remained pending before a domestic court for five years without any feedback to complainants and contrary to applicable procedural regulations, the delay is unduly prolonged and the requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56 of the African Charter does not apply.
Force Majeure — Predictability — State Responsibility
A State cannot invoke force majeure to escape liability for human rights violations where the events were foreseeable. Where early warning signs existed and the State had knowledge of threats, the events cannot be characterised as unforeseeable, irresistible or beyond the State's control.
Right to Effective Remedy — Article 7 African Charter — Frozen Proceedings
The right to an effective remedy under Article 7 of the African Charter is violated where a remedy is available and accessible but remains frozen and inappropriate, preventing the court from making a ruling for over five years.
State Liability — Compensation for Human Rights Violations — Obligation to Compensate
Where a State's responsibility for human rights violations is established, the State has an obligation to pay fair and equitable compensation to victims or their beneficiaries for the prejudices suffered, with the amount to be fixed in accordance with applicable laws.

Legislation cited (10)

  • 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 7
  • 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 62
  • Law No 75/17 of 08/12/1975 (Cameroon)
  • Law of 26 June 1964 (Cameroon)

Cases cited (16)

  • Louis Emgba Mekongo v Cameroon (Communication 59 of 1991)
  • Abdoulaye Mazou v Cameroon (Communication 630 of 1995)
  • Social and Economic Rights Action Centre v Nigeria (Communication 155 of 1996)
  • National Human Rights and Liberties Commission v Chad (Communication 74 of 1992)
  • Sir Dawda K Jawara v The Gambia (Communications 147 of 1995 and 149 of 1996)
  • Constitutional Rights Project and Others v Nigeria (Communications 140, 141 and 145 of 1994-1995)
  • Kilic v Turkey (ECtHR, 28 March 2000)
  • LCB v United Kingdom (ECtHR, 9 June 1998)
  • Osman judgment
  • Legal Resources Foundation v Zimbabwe (Communication 211 of 1998)
  • Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (Communication 245 of 2002)
  • Vélasquez Rodriguez case
  • Colozza v Italy (ECtHR, Application No 9024/80, 1985)
  • De Cubber v Belgium (ECtHR, Application No 9186/80, 1984)
  • Request for Interpretation of Avena (Mexico v United States) (ICJ, 19 January 2009)
  • Barcelona Traction (ICJ, 5 February 1970)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Association of Victims of Post Electoral Violence and Another v Cameroon (Communication 272 of 2003) [2009] ACHPR 101 (25 November 2009)
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.