Wakilii

FIDH and Others v Senegal (Communication 304 of 2005)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2006] ACHPR 78 · 2006 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication submitted to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violation of the African Charter by domestic amnesty legislation
Decision
Communication dismissed for non-exhaustion of local remedies

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 complainants did not pursue available domestic remedies, including civil and administrative remedies, before approaching the Commission. The Commission further held that a law not yet in force cannot violate Charter-protected rights, and that Article 56.1 requires only identification of the communication's authors, not the victims.

Outcome

Communication dismissed for non-exhaustion of local remedies

Facts

On 7 January 2005, the Senegalese Parliament adopted the Ezzan Law granting complete amnesty for all crimes committed between 1 January 1983 and 31 December 2004 relating to elections or with political motivations. Article 2, granting amnesty for crimes relating to the death of Constitutional Court Judge Babacar Seye, was declared unconstitutional on 12 February 2005. Three NGOs with observer status at the African Commission submitted a communication on 2 May 2005 alleging the law violated Article 7.1(a) of the African Charter by preventing victims from accessing competent national organs. Members of Parliament had previously challenged the law before the Constitutional Council, which declared itself incompetent to assess the law's conformity with international treaties, ruling only on constitutional conformity. The law was promulgated on 17 February 2005.

Issues

  1. Whether the communication is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. Whether local remedies have been exhausted as required by Article 56.5 of the African Charter.
  3. Whether the identity of victims must be specified for a communication to be admissible under Article 56.1 of the African Charter.
  4. Whether a law that has not yet entered into force can violate rights protected by the African Charter.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Admissibility of Communications — Exhaustion of Local Remedies
A communication to the African Commission is inadmissible where the complainants have not exhausted available local remedies, including civil and administrative remedies, before approaching the Commission.
Human Rights — Admissibility of Communications — Identification of Victims
Article 56.1 of the African Charter requires only the identification of the author or authors of a communication, not the identification of victims, and it is not necessary for the author to be the victim or for any link between author and victim to exist.
Human Rights — Admissibility of Communications — Law Not Yet in Force
A law that has not yet entered into force cannot violate any right protected by the African Charter.
Human Rights — Admissibility of Communications — Scope of Local Remedies
Local remedies under Article 56.5 of the African Charter are not limited to penal remedies but include all legal remedies, whether civil, penal, or administrative.
Constitutional Law — Constitutional Council — Competence and Alternative Remedies
Where a Constitutional Council declares itself incompetent to deal with a given issue, such as verification of a law's conformity with an international convention, the absence of appellate review of the Council's decision does not establish that no other legal body is competent on the matter.

Legislation cited (9)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7.1(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 55
  • 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 56.5
  • Senegalese Constitution Article 74
  • Senegalese Constitution Article 98
  • Law No. 2005-05 of 17 February 2005 (Ezzan Law) Article 1
  • Law No. 2005-05 of 17 February 2005 (Ezzan Law) Article 2

Cases cited (2)

  • Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (Communication 245 of 2002)
  • communications 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 à 196/97, 210/98 Malawi Africa Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayants-Droit, Association mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

FIDH and Others v Senegal (Communication 304 of 2005) [2006] ACHPR 78 (29 November 2006)
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.