Wakilii

Gabriel and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 050-2016)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2016] AfCHPR 53 · 2016 Provisional Measures Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for provisional measures before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights by applicants sentenced to death in Tanzania
Decision
Provisional measures granted; execution of death penalty stayed pending determination of main Application

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 ordered provisional measures proprio motu to prevent execution of the death penalty against two applicants detained in Tanzania. The Court found it had prima facie jurisdiction and that the situation presented extreme gravity and risk of irreparable harm to rights protected under the African Charter, warranting an order restraining execution pending determination of the merits.

Outcome

Provisional measures granted; execution of death penalty stayed pending determination of main Application

Facts

The applicants, Crospery Gabriel and Ernest Mutakyawa, were convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the High Court of Tanzania at Bukoba on 3 July 2014. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest court in Tanzania, confirmed the death sentence on 20 February 2016. The applicants are currently detained at Butimba Central Prison. They filed an application with the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights on 1 September 2016, alleging violations of their human rights including that the trial and appellate courts failed to consider their evidence, improperly admitted postmortem evidence, relied on inconsistent witness testimony, and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. They contend the death sentence violates their right to life.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to deal with the Application.
  2. Whether provisional measures should be ordered proprio motu to prevent execution of the death penalty pending determination of the main Application.

Orders

  • The Respondent shall refrain from executing the death penalty against the Applicants pending the determination of the Application.
  • The Respondent shall report to the Court within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of this Order on the measures taken to implement the Order.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Provisional Measures — Jurisdiction — Prima Facie Jurisdiction
In ordering provisional measures, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights need not satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, but simply needs to satisfy itself, prima facie, that it has jurisdiction.
Human Rights — Provisional Measures — Proprio Motu Powers — Extreme Gravity and Irreparable Harm
Under Article 27(2) of the Protocol and Rule 51(1) of the Rules, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights is empowered to order provisional measures proprio motu in cases of extreme gravity and when necessary to avoid irreparable harm to persons and which it deems necessary to adopt in the interest of the parties or of justice.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Death Penalty — Provisional Measures — Risk of Execution
Where applicants are on death row and there exists a risk that execution of the death penalty will jeopardise the enjoyment of rights guaranteed under the African Charter, the situation is one of extreme gravity representing a risk of irreparable harm warranting an order for provisional measures to preserve the status quo pending determination of the main application.

Legislation cited (10)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(2)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 4
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • 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 5
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(2)
  • 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)
  • Criminal Procedure Act Cap 20 Revised Edition 2002 s.240
  • Constitution of Tanzania Article 13(6)(d)
  • Constitution of Tanzania Article 14

Cases cited (3)

  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (Application No. 002/2013)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya (Application No. 006/2012)
  • African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (Application No. 004/2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gabriel and Another v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 050-2016) [2016] AfCHPR 53 (18 November 2016)
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.