Wakilii

Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Republic of Sudan (Communication 310 of 2005)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2009] ACHPR 104 · 2009 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 arising from non-payment of compensation to Sudanese nationals detained during the Iran-Iraq War
Decision
Communication declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies and failure to submit within a reasonable time

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 satisfy two requirements of Article 56 of the African Charter. First, the complainants had not exhausted local remedies because they failed to pursue an available remedy before the Constitutional Court of Sudan. Second, the communication was not submitted within a reasonable time, having been filed 29 months after the final domestic court decision with no compelling justification for the delay.

Outcome

Communication declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies and failure to submit within a reasonable time

Facts

Thirty-three Sudanese nationals were employed by an Iraqi oil company in the early 1980s. During the Iran-Iraq War in February 1983, they were arrested and detained in Iranian military prisons for seven years until their release in October 1990. The Iraqi and Sudanese governments agreed that Iraq would pay USD 500,000 in unpaid salaries to the detainees, to be paid through Sudan's Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning and deducted from Sudan's debt to Iraq. In 1993, the Ministry paid USD 167,367 as a first instalment but refused to pay the remaining balance of USD 332,633. The victims pursued the matter through Sudanese courts from 2000 to 2003. The Court of First Instance dismissed their claim twice, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal in December 2002, and the High Court dismissed an application for injunction in June 2003. The complainant brought the matter to the African Commission in November 2005, alleging violations of the African Charter.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication complied with the admissibility requirements under Article 56(1) of the African Charter regarding identification of authors.
  2. Whether the communication was compatible with the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity and the African Charter as required by Article 56(2).
  3. Whether the communication contained disparaging or insulting language contrary to Article 56(3) of the African Charter.
  4. Whether the complainants exhausted all available local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
  5. Whether the communication was submitted within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible.
  • Decision to be transmitted to the parties.
  • Decision to be published in the 27th Activity Report of the African Commission.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Constitutional Court as Available Remedy
Where a Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms, a complainant must exhaust that remedy before bringing a communication to the African Commission, even if the Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction to review judgments of other courts.
Admissibility — Time Limits — Reasonable Period for Submission
A communication submitted 29 months after the final domestic court decision, without compelling justification for the delay, fails to satisfy the requirement that communications be submitted within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies.
Admissibility — Disparaging Language — Balance with Freedom of Expression
Language in a communication is not disparaging or insulting within the meaning of Article 56(3) of the African Charter unless it is aimed at unlawfully and intentionally violating the dignity, reputation or integrity of a judicial officer or body in a manner calculated to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Article 56(3) must be interpreted in light of Article 9(2) which protects freedom of expression.
Admissibility — Identification of Authors — NGO Representation
A communication satisfies the requirement to indicate its authors where it identifies both the organisation bringing the communication and the individual victims on whose behalf it is brought, even where the organisation acts as representative.
Admissibility — Compatibility with the Charter — Prima Facie Violation
A communication is compatible with the African Charter where there is evidence of prima facie violation of Charter rights, the respondent State is party to the Charter, the alleged violations occurred after the Charter came into force for that State, and the violations occurred within the territorial sphere to which the Charter applies.

Legislation cited (20)

  • 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 5
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 16(1)
  • 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(3)
  • 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 60
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 61
  • Constitutional Court Act of Sudan Article 15(1)(d)
  • Constitutional Court Act of Sudan Article 15(2)
  • Civil Procedures Act of Sudan
  • European Convention on Human Rights Article 35
  • American Convention on Human Rights Article 46(1)(b)

Cases cited (5)

  • Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights v Zimbabwe (Communication 284 of 2003)
  • Ligue Camerounaise des Droits de l'Homme v Cameroon (Communication 65 of 1992)
  • Amnesty International and Others v Sudan (Communications 48/90, 50/91, 52/91 and 89/93)
  • Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (Communication 308 of 2005)
  • Union des Scolaires Nigeriens v Niger (Communication 43 of 1990)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre v Republic of Sudan (Communication 310 of 2005) [2009] ACHPR 104 (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.