Wakilii

Chari v Zimbabwe (Communication 351 of 2007)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2012] ACHPR 7 · 2012 Communication Inadmissible 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
Decision
Communication declared inadmissible

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 inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. The Commission held that the complainant did not demonstrate that local remedies were unavailable or ineffective, noting that Zimbabwean law permits legal representation without physical presence in the jurisdiction. The complainant failed to attempt to exhaust local remedies or provide sufficient evidence to support claims that fear for safety made exhaustion impossible. The Commission further held that Article 56(6) was not satisfied because the reasonable time requirement is tied to exhaustion of local remedies.

Outcome

Communication declared inadmissible

Facts

Givemore Chari, a 27-year-old Zimbabwean student leader and President of the Student Representative Council at Bindura University, was suspended in October 2005 after leading a peaceful student march demanding timely payouts and improved welfare. In May 2006, following further student protests over tuition increases, Chari and 47 other students were arrested and detained for two days at Rhodesville Police Station in allegedly poor conditions. The complainant alleged that Chari was assaulted by police, denied food and legal access, then released without charge. Shortly after, Chari was allegedly abducted by members of the Central Intelligence Organisation who assaulted him and discussed plans to kill him. Chari jumped from the moving vehicle, sustained injuries, and subsequently fled Zimbabwe to South Africa. The communication was submitted to the African Commission on 5 November 2007.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication complies with Article 56(2) of the African Charter by establishing a prima facie case of violations.
  2. Whether local remedies were exhausted or whether it was impossible or impractical for the victim to exhaust them as required by Article 56(5).
  3. Whether the communication was submitted within a reasonable time as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible for non-compliance with Articles 56(5) and 56(6) of the African Charter.
  • Notice of the decision to be given to the parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
  • Decision to be attached to the 32nd Activity Report.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Physical Presence Not Required
Where national laws permit legal representation without the physical presence of the applicant in the jurisdiction, the absence of a complainant from the country does not render local remedies unavailable or excuse the failure to exhaust them.
Admissibility — Burden of Proof — Availability and Effectiveness of Remedies
Once a respondent state demonstrates that local remedies are available and effective, the burden shifts to the complainant to prove otherwise by attempting to exhaust those remedies or providing concrete evidence that they are unavailable or ineffective.
Admissibility — Effectiveness of Remedies — Isolated Incidents of Non-Compliance
It is not sufficient for a complainant to conclude that local remedies are ineffective based on isolated instances of state non-compliance with court decisions; each case must be treated on its own merits and the complainant must attempt to exhaust available remedies.
Admissibility — Prima Facie Case — Rationae Materiae
A communication establishes a prima facie case under Article 56(2) of the African Charter when the allegations, on their face, reveal violations of rights guaranteed by the Charter, even if the respondent state contests the vagueness or consistency of the facts.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Tied to Exhaustion of Local Remedies
The requirement under Article 56(6) that a communication be submitted within a reasonable time is tied to the exhaustion of local remedies; where local remedies have not been exhausted, the reasonable time requirement is automatically not met.

Legislation cited (15)

  • 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(b)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(4)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(6)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(7)
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe Section 24(1)
  • High Court Act (Zimbabwe) Chapter 7.06
  • High Court Act (Zimbabwe) Section 50(1)
  • Supreme Court Act (Zimbabwe) Chapter 7.05

Cases cited (11)

  • John D. Ouko v Kenya (Communication 232 of 1999)
  • Commercial Farmers Union v The Minister of Lands and Agriculture, land Resettlement and others, Supreme Court Ruling, (132-2000)
  • Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (Communication 307 of 2007)
  • Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (Communication 308 of 2005)
  • Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania (Communication 33 of 2006)
  • J.E Zitha and P.J.L. Zitha v Mozambique (Communication 361 of 2008)
  • Sir Dawda K. Jawara v The Gambia (Communications 147 of 1995 and 149 of 1996)
  • Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia (Communication 299 of 2005)
  • Article 19 v Eritrea (Communication 275 of 2003)
  • RHADDO v Zambia (Communication 71 of 1992)
  • Mark Chavhunduka and Ray Choto v Zimbabwe

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Chari v Zimbabwe (Communication 351 of 2007) [2012] ACHPR 7 (1 March 2012)
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.