Diawara v Benin (Communication 18 of 1988)
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 want of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter. The complainant had referred his complaint to the courts in Benin where it remained pending. The Commission applied Rule 103(l)(f) of its Rules of Procedure requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies before a communication can be considered admissible.
Outcome
Communication inadmissible — matter pending before domestic courts in Benin
Facts
El Hadj Boubacare Diawara submitted a communication alleging he had been detained without charge or trial from 18 February 1982 for more than seven years. He also reported the arbitrary detention of seven other persons, one of whom died in prison eleven months after imprisonment. All detainees were allegedly tortured while imprisoned. Notice of hearing was sent to both parties but only the representative of the Government of Benin appeared. The complainant had referred his complaint to the courts in Benin where it was pending at the time of the Commission's consideration.
Issues
- Whether the communication was admissible before the African Commission given that the matter was pending before domestic courts in Benin.
Orders
- Communication declared inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.