Wakilii

Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan (Communication 296 of 2005)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2006] ACHPR 70 · 2006 Application Granted 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 human rights violations in Darfur region — admissibility decision
Decision
Communication declared admissible and proceeding to merits consideration

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 declared the communication admissible. The Commission held that the scale of alleged abuses, the number of persons involved, and the nature of violations made local remedies unavailable, ineffective, and insufficient as a practical matter, notwithstanding the State's establishment of various domestic mechanisms. The Commission further held that UN Security Council resolutions and Commission on Human Rights discussions did not constitute settlement of the matter under Article 56(7), as no treaty or Charter body had taken a decision addressing the specific concerns raised in the communication.

Outcome

Communication declared admissible and proceeding to merits consideration

Facts

The complainant, a Washington-based NGO with observer status, alleged that from February 2003 onwards, the Government of Sudan formed, armed, and sponsored the Janjaweed militia to suppress rebellion in Darfur. The complainant alleged that government forces and the Janjaweed conducted widespread attacks on civilian populations of the Fur, Masaalit, and Zaghawa tribes, resulting in forced evictions, killings, rape, destruction of villages, looting of property, poisoning of wells, and displacement of over one million persons. The complainant alleged these actions violated multiple provisions of the African Charter. Sudan argued the communication was inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies and because the matter had been addressed by UN mechanisms. The complainant responded that victims could not access local remedies due to displacement, intimidation, and the climate of violence, and that domestic mechanisms established by Sudan were ineffective in practice.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication satisfies the admissibility requirements under Article 56(5) of the African Charter, specifically whether local remedies have been exhausted or are unavailable, ineffective, or insufficient.
  2. Whether the communication has been settled by other international mechanisms under Article 56(7) of the African Charter, specifically by UN mechanisms including Security Council resolutions and Commission on Human Rights proceedings.

Orders

  • Communication declared admissible.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Exception for Mass Violations
Where there are mass human rights violations involving tens of thousands of victims who have been displaced or are subject to violence and intimidation, local remedies are as a practical matter unavailable, ineffective, and insufficient, and the requirement to exhaust local remedies does not apply.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Criteria for Availability
A local remedy must be available, effective, and sufficient for the exhaustion requirement to apply. A remedy is available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, effective if it offers a prospect of success, and sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint. All three criteria must be present.
Admissibility — Burden on Complainant — Mere Doubts Insufficient
It is incumbent on a complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies. Mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or casting aspersions on domestic mechanisms due to isolated incidents does not absolve the complainant from pursuing such remedies.
Admissibility — Exception to Exhaustion — Link to Fair Trial Rights
The exception to the exhaustion of local remedies rule applies where the domestic situation does not afford due process of law for the protection of rights allegedly violated, particularly where victims cannot access courts due to displacement, harassment, intimidation, persecution, or prevalence of violence.
Admissibility — Notice to State — Alternative to Domestic Remedies
Where a State has had ample notice and time to remedy human rights violations through international mechanisms and recommendations, even outside the context of domestic remedies, and has failed to create a conducive environment for enjoyment of rights, the exhaustion requirement may be satisfied.
Admissibility — Settlement by Other Mechanisms — Definition
A matter is settled within the meaning of Article 56(7) of the African Charter only if it has been dealt with by a UN human rights treaty body or Charter body that has taken a decision addressing the concerns and relief sought by the complainant. General discussion by UN bodies or adoption of resolutions on the broader situation does not constitute settlement.
Admissibility — UN Security Council Resolutions — Not Settlement
UN Security Council resolutions establishing peacekeeping forces, monitoring committees, or referring matters to the International Criminal Court do not constitute settlement of a communication under Article 56(7) where they do not specifically address the allegations raised in the communication.

Legislation cited (18)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • 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 12(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 22
  • 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 56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(7)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 58
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 58(2)
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 111
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Rule 111(3)

Cases cited (10)

  • World Organisation Against Torture v Zaire (Communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/91 and 100/93)
  • SERAC and CESR v Nigeria (Communication 155/96)
  • Dawda Jawara v The Gambia (Communications 147/95 and 149/96)
  • A v Australia, Communication No. 560/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (1997)
  • L Emil Kaaber v Iceland, Communication No. 674/1995. UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/674/1995 (1996)
  • Ati Antoine Randolph v. Togo, Communication No. 910/2000, UN Doc. CCPR/C/79/D/910/2000 (2003)
  • Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritania (Communications 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 to 196/97 and 210/98)
  • Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (Communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93)
  • Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Exceptions
  • Amnesty International v Tunisia (Communication 69/92)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan (Communication 296 of 2005) [2006] ACHPR 70 (25 May 2006)
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.