Wakilii

Faustin v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.018-2016)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 22 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of rights under the African Charter following conviction for murder and death sentence in Tanzania
Decision
Application dismissed on the merits; applicant remains convicted and sentenced to death

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 Court on Human and Peoples' Rights held that it has jurisdiction and the application is admissible. On the merits, the Court found that Tanzania did not violate the applicant's rights under Articles 3 and 7 of the African Charter. The Court held that domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating evidence and that the manner in which Tanzanian courts handled the trial, conviction, and appeal did not disclose manifest error or miscarriage of justice requiring international intervention. The applicant was provided with adequate free legal representation throughout the proceedings.

Outcome

Application dismissed on the merits; applicant remains convicted and sentenced to death

Facts

On 10 April 1999, the applicant went to a house in Kijumbula village, Kagera, Tanzania, seeking to collect money owed to him by Petro Nzeimana. Not finding Nzeimana, the applicant engaged in a heated argument with the deceased, Pereuse Stanslaus, who was Nzeimana's brother. The argument escalated, with the applicant chasing the deceased until they fell into a ditch. The applicant then stabbed the deceased in the neck with a knife, causing a deep wound that led to his death. The applicant claimed he killed the victim accidentally and that he had carried the knife to fillet fish he had bought from a nearby lake. On 5 December 2000, the applicant was charged with premeditated murder. On 29 August 2006, he was convicted and sentenced to death by the High Court. The Court of Appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence on 8 November 2011. The applicant filed an application for review with the Court of Appeal, which was pending at the time he filed his application to the African Court on 12 April 2016.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights has jurisdiction to hear the application.
  2. Whether the application is admissible, particularly regarding exhaustion of local remedies and filing within a reasonable time.
  3. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to have his cause heard by an impartial court under Article 7(1) of the African Charter.
  4. Whether the domestic courts failed to consider the Applicant's defence of provocation.
  5. Whether the domestic courts erred in charging the Applicant with premeditated murder instead of manslaughter.
  6. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to be defended by counsel of his choice under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.
  7. Whether the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law under Article 3 of the African Charter.

Orders

  • Objections to jurisdiction dismissed.
  • Court has jurisdiction.
  • Objection to admissibility dismissed.
  • Application declared admissible.
  • Respondent State has not violated Article 3(1) and (2) of the Charter regarding equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
  • Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1) of the Charter regarding the right to have cause heard by an impartial court.
  • Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter regarding the right to free legal assistance.
  • Applicant's prayers for reparations dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

International Human Rights Courts — Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Interpretation and Application of Human Rights Instruments
An international human rights court has material jurisdiction to examine relevant proceedings before domestic courts to determine whether they comply with the standards set out in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights or any other human rights instrument to which the State concerned is a party.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Extraordinary Remedies
An applicant is required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies before seizing an international human rights court. Constitutional petitions and petitions for review of judgments of the highest appellate court are extraordinary remedies, and an applicant is not required to exhaust them before filing an application with an international human rights court.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time — Determination on Case-by-Case Basis
The reasonableness of the timeframe for filing an application with an international human rights court after exhaustion of local remedies depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis. A period of four years, five months, and four days may constitute a reasonable time where the applicant is on death row, incarcerated, restricted in movement, and has limited access to information about the court's rules.
Fair Trial — Evaluation of Evidence — Margin of Appreciation of Domestic Courts
Domestic courts enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in evaluating the probative value of particular evidence. An international human rights court cannot take up this role from domestic courts and investigate the details and particularities of evidence used in domestic proceedings. However, the international court may assess the manner in which evidence was examined by domestic courts to determine whether the domestic procedures fulfilled international human rights standards.
Right to Counsel — Free Legal Assistance — Counsel of Choice
The right to be defended by counsel of one's choice is not absolute when counsel is provided through a free legal assistance scheme. The important consideration is whether the applicant was provided with effective legal representation, not whether he was allowed to be represented by a lawyer of his choice. The State bears the burden of providing adequate free legal representation, and an international human rights court intervenes only if actual representation is not provided.

Legislation cited (11)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 6(2)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(1)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 34(6)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)(d)
  • Basic Rights and Duties Act No. 3
  • Criminal Procedure Act Article 290

Cases cited (25)

  • Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.004/2015)
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Application No.001/2012)
  • Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Malawi (Application No.001/2013)
  • Armand Guéhi v Tanzania (Application No.001/2015)
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v Tanzania (Application No.010/2015)
  • Kenedy Ivan v Tanzania (Application No.025/2016)
  • Mhina Zuberi v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.054/2016)
  • Masoud Rajabu v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.008/2016)
  • Beneficiaries of late Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso (Application No.013/2011)
  • Communication No. 333/2006 - SAHRINGON and others v. Tanzania
  • Article 19 v Eritrea (Communication No.275/2003)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Application No.006/2012)
  • Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.007/2013)
  • Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.005/2013)
  • Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.006/2013)
  • Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.011/2015)
  • Majuru v. Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 146
  • Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.032/2015)
  • Minani Evarist v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.031/2015)
  • Kennedy Onyanchi and Charles Njoka v. Tanzania (merits)
  • Croissant v Germany (Application No.13611/88)
  • Kamasinski v Austria (Application No.9783/82)
  • Lagerblom v Sweden (Application No.26891/95)
  • Evodius Rutechura v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.004/2016)
  • Mgosi Mwita Makungu v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.001/2015)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Faustin v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No.018-2016) [2021] AfCHPR 22 (30 September 2021)
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.