Wakilii

Fadhl Al Mawla Husni Ahmed Ismail and 19 Others (represented by Freedom and Justice Party of Egypt) v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 670 of 2017)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2020] ACHPR 1 · 2020 Application 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 alleging violations of the African Charter arising from death sentences imposed by Egyptian courts
Decision
Communication dismissed on admissibility grounds — Complainant lacked locus standi

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 comply with Article 56(1) of the African Charter. The Commission held that the Freedom and Justice Party, having been dissolved by the Supreme Administrative Court of Egypt in 2014, ceased to exist as a juridical person and therefore lacked locus standi to bring the Communication. While the Commission found that the other admissibility requirements under Article 56(2)–(7) were satisfied, the failure to meet the threshold requirement under Article 56(1) rendered the Communication inadmissible.

Outcome

Communication dismissed on admissibility grounds — Complainant lacked locus standi

Facts

The Freedom and Justice Party of Egypt submitted a Communication on behalf of twenty individuals sentenced to death in five separate cases before Egyptian courts. The Complainant alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the African Charter, including torture, forced disappearances, denial of legal representation, and flawed trial proceedings. The Respondent State challenged the Complainant's locus standi, submitting that the Freedom and Justice Party had been dissolved by the Supreme Administrative Court of Egypt on 8 April 2014, three years before the Communication was filed. The Respondent State further submitted that the Party was established by the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been declared a terrorist organization. The Commission granted provisional measures on 29 November 2017, but four of the named individuals were executed thereafter. The Respondent State declined to engage further on admissibility, maintaining that the Complainant lacked standing.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant (Freedom and Justice Party of Egypt) has locus standi to bring a Communication before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether the Communication satisfies the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  3. Whether a juridical person that has been dissolved by a domestic court retains legal standing to submit a Communication to the African Commission.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(1) of the African Charter.
  • Decision notified to the Parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Locus Standi — Juridical Persons — Dissolution by Domestic Court
A juridical person that has been dissolved by a domestic court ceases to exist as a legal entity and therefore lacks locus standi to bring a Communication before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights under Article 56(1) of the African Charter.
Admissibility — Locus Standi — Permissive Approach — Limitations
The African Commission adopts an exceptionally wide approach to locus standi, placing no restriction on who can bring a Communication as long as the conditions under Article 56 of the African Charter are met. However, an implicit requirement under Article 56(1) is that the author must be a person, either natural or juridical, in order to have standing.
Admissibility — Dissolution Following Submission of Communication
Where a juridical person is dissolved by a State following the submission of a Communication against that State, the dissolution does not deprive the Complainant of locus standi. To hold otherwise would permit States to dissolve nationally registered juridical persons in order to defeat pending Communications.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Finality of Highest Court Decisions
Where the highest court of a State has upheld a death sentence and no further right of appeal exists, local remedies are exhausted for the purposes of Article 56(5) of the African Charter, even if other non-judicial avenues such as presidential pardons remain theoretically available.
Admissibility — Mass Media Sources — Supplementary Evidence
A Communication is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media where the Complainant also relies on reports from internationally recognized non-governmental organizations, statements of the United Nations, and evidence from defense lawyers. The Commission will not reject a Communication merely because some aspects are based on mass media sources.

Legislation cited (23)

  • 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 32(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 55
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 55(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • 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 56(7)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 58
  • African Commission Rules of Procedure Rule 32(2)
  • African Commission Rules of Procedure Rule 63(1)
  • African Commission Rules of Procedure Rule 84(1)
  • African Commission Rules of Procedure Rule 98
  • African Commission Rules of Procedure Rule 98(4)
  • African Commission Rules of Procedure Rule 105(2)
  • African Commission Rules of Procedure Rule 107(3)

Cases cited (13)

  • Maria Baes v Zaire (Communication 31 of 1989)
  • Sir Dowda K Jawara v The Gambia (Communications 147 of 1995 and 149 of 1996)
  • Alfred B Cudjoe v Ghana (Communication 221 of 1998)
  • Tanganyika Law Society v Tanzania (Application No. 009 of 2011)
  • Akdivar and Others v Turkey (Application No. 21893 of 1993)
  • Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v The Government of Zimbabwe (Communication 284 of 2003)
  • Huri-Laws v Nigeria (Communication 225 of 1998)
  • FIDH & Others v Senegal (Communication 304 of 2005)
  • Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Democratic Republic of the Congo (Communications 25 of 1989, 47 of 1990, 56 of 1991, 100 of 1993)
  • Spilg and Mack & DITSHWANELO v Botswana (Communication 277 of 2003)
  • Groupe de Travail sur les Dossiers Judiciaires strategiques v Democratic Republic of Congo (Communication 259 of 2002)
  • Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan (Communications 279 of 2003 and 296 of 2005)
  • Ahmed Ismael and 528 Others v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 467 of 2014)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Fadhl Al Mawla Husni Ahmed Ismail and 19 Others (represented by Freedom and Justice Party of Egypt) v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 670 of 2017) [2020] ACHPR 1 (9 September 2020)
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.