Wakilii

Association Pour La Sauvegarde De La Paix Au Burundi v Tanzania and Others (Communication 157 of 1996)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2003] ACHPR 40 · 2003 Communication Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights challenging the legality of an economic embargo imposed on Burundi by neighbouring states
Decision
Communication dismissed; respondent states found not guilty of violating the African Charter

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 the respondent states were not guilty of violating the African Charter. The embargo imposed on Burundi following the 1996 military coup was a legitimate collective action sanctioned by international law, endorsed by the OAU and UN Security Council. The sanctions were not indiscriminate, were targeted, monitored regularly, and adjusted to minimise suffering. The Commission found that the intervention was proportionate and aimed at restoring constitutional legality and peace in Burundi.

Outcome

Communication dismissed; respondent states found not guilty of violating the African Charter

Facts

Following a military coup d'état on 25 July 1996 that overthrew Burundi's democratically elected government and installed Major Pierre Buyoya, neighbouring states (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Zaire, and Zambia) imposed an economic embargo on Burundi at the Arusha Summit on 31 July 1996. The embargo was subsequently endorsed by the OAU and UN Security Council. The Association Pour La Sauvegarde De La Paix au Burundi, a Belgian-based NGO, filed a communication alleging that the embargo violated multiple provisions of the African Charter and OAU Charter by preventing importation of essential goods, school materials, and means of transportation, and by sheltering terrorist militia. The respondent states argued that the embargo was a legitimate regional intervention aimed at restoring constitutional legality, democracy, and peace in Burundi. A monitoring committee was established, and the embargo was adjusted over time to exclude essential items including food, medical supplies, and educational materials. By the time of the Commission's decision, the embargo had been lifted and a peace process was underway.

Issues

  1. Whether the economic embargo imposed on Burundi by Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Zaire, Zambia and Ethiopia violated Article 4 of the African Charter (right to life and physical and moral integrity).
  2. Whether the embargo violated Article 17(1) of the African Charter (right to education).
  3. Whether the embargo violated Article 22 of the African Charter (right to economic, social and cultural development).
  4. Whether the embargo violated Article 23(2)(b) of the African Charter by sheltering and supporting terrorist militia.
  5. Whether the embargo constituted unlawful interference in the internal affairs of Burundi contrary to Articles 3(1), (2) and (3) of the OAU Charter.
  6. Whether the locus standi of the complainant was properly established under the African Charter.

Orders

  • Finds that the Respondent States are not guilty of violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights as alleged.
  • Takes note of the entry into force of the Burundi Peace and Reconciliation Agreement (Arusha Accords), and that the Respondent States are among the States that have sponsored the said Accord.
  • Notes the efforts of the Respondent States aimed at restoring lasting peace and the development of the rule of law in Burundi through the accession of all Burundian parties to the Arusha Accord.
  • Welcomes the entry into force of the Constitutive Act of the African Union in 2000 to which Burundi and all Respondent States are party.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Regional Human Rights Mechanisms — Locus Standi — NGO Communications
Where a non-governmental organisation submits a communication that appears to represent the interests of a state, the African Commission may examine it under Article 56 as a non-state communication rather than under Articles 47-54 as a state communication, particularly where respondent states do not challenge the locus standi and the matter advances human rights protection.
Administrative Law — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Inapplicability to Inter-State Matters
The requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5) and (6) of the African Charter does not apply where national courts have no jurisdiction over the respondent states, as is the case in matters that appropriately fall under inter-state communications.
Constitutional Law — International Law — Economic Sanctions — Legitimacy and Proportionality
Economic sanctions and embargoes imposed by states are legitimate interventions in international law where they are endorsed by the UN Security Council and regional organisations, provided they are not excessive, disproportionate, or indiscriminate, and are targeted at achieving legitimate purposes such as restoring constitutional order and peace.
Human Rights — Economic Sanctions — Monitoring and Adjustment Requirements
For economic sanctions to remain legitimate under international human rights law, they must be carefully monitored, their effects regularly assessed, and adjustments made to meet the basic needs of vulnerable populations and minimise suffering while maintaining pressure on the intended target.
Constitutional Law — International Law — Regional Arrangements — Collective Action
States in a sub-region may take collective action under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter to address threats to peace and security within their region, and such action is not a breach of sovereignty or unlawful interference in domestic affairs where it is motivated by principles enshrined in the OAU and UN Charters and subsequently endorsed by appropriate international organs.
Human Rights — Sanctions — Purpose and Limits
Sanctions are not an end in themselves and must not be imposed solely to cause suffering; they are legitimate only when imposed to bring about peaceful resolution of disputes, and states imposing them have a duty to ensure they are not open-ended and do not become disproportionate to their legitimate purpose.

Legislation cited (17)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art.4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art.17(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art.22
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art.23(2)(b)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art.56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art.56(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights art.45(2)
  • OAU Charter art.III(1)
  • OAU Charter art.III(2)
  • OAU Charter art.III(3)
  • OAU Charter art.III(4)
  • OAU Charter art.II(2)(2)
  • United Nations Charter Chapter VII
  • United Nations Charter Chapter VIII
  • United Nations Charter art.52
  • Vienna Convention on Treaties art.28
  • Constitutive Act of the African Union

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Association Pour La Sauvegarde De La Paix Au Burundi v Tanzania and Others (Communication 157 of 1996) [2003] ACHPR 40 (29 May 2003)
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.