Wakilii

Hossou and Another v Republic of Benin (Application No. 016-2020)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2021] AfCHPR 10 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application challenging the Republic of Benin's withdrawal of its declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction to receive applications from individuals and NGOs
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction

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 lacks material jurisdiction to hear an application challenging a State's withdrawal of its declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court found that the declaration is a unilateral act governed by State sovereignty principles, not by treaty law, and that States retain the right to withdraw such declarations without violating human rights obligations.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction

Facts

On 8 February 2016, the Republic of Benin deposited a declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter, accepting the Court's jurisdiction to receive applications from individuals and NGOs. On 25 March 2020, Benin deposited an instrument withdrawing this declaration with the African Union Commission. On 7 May 2020, the Applicants, two Beninese nationals and jurists, filed an application before the African Court challenging Benin's withdrawal of the declaration. They alleged that the withdrawal violated the Charter and international human rights standards and prevented citizens from accessing the regional judicial system. The Respondent State argued that the Court lacked material jurisdiction to hear the matter, asserting that the withdrawal was an exercise of State sovereignty and that the declaration was optional and not binding.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court has material jurisdiction to hear an application challenging a State's withdrawal of its declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction under Article 34(6) of the Protocol.
  2. Whether a State's withdrawal of its declaration under Article 34(6) constitutes a violation of human rights protected by the African Charter.

Orders

  • Upholds the objection to its material jurisdiction.
  • Declares that it lacks jurisdiction.
  • Orders each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — International Courts — Jurisdiction — Optional Declarations — State Sovereignty
A declaration made by a State under Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter accepting the jurisdiction of the African Court to receive applications from individuals and NGOs is a unilateral act of the State, optional in nature, and separable from the Protocol itself, which can be withdrawn without leading to withdrawal or denunciation of the Protocol.
Administrative Law — International Law — Treaty Law — Unilateral Acts — Vienna Convention
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not apply to a declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol because, although the declaration is provided for in the Protocol which is governed by treaty law, the declaration itself is a unilateral act of the State not backed by the law of treaties.
Constitutional Law — State Sovereignty — International Commitments — Right to Withdraw
The optional nature of a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of an international court and its unilateral character derive from the principle of State sovereignty in international law, which prescribes that States are free to make commitments and retain the power to withdraw their commitments in accordance with the relevant rules of each treaty.
Human Rights — Court Jurisdiction — Material Jurisdiction — Withdrawal of Declaration
The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights lacks material jurisdiction to hear an application challenging a State's withdrawal of its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, as the matter pertains to a right accorded to States to establish complementary human rights implementation mechanisms, and States are entitled to withdraw such declarations.

Legislation cited (6)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court Article 3
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court Article 34(6)
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
  • Statute of the International Court of Justice Article 36(2)
  • European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 46
  • American Convention on Human Rights Article 62(1)

Cases cited (6)

  • Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin (Application No. 003/2020)
  • Michelot Yogogombaye v Senegal (Jurisdiction)
  • Kalebi Elisamehe v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 028/2015)
  • Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania
  • Nguza Viking and Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania
  • Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Jurisdiction)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hossou and Another v Republic of Benin (Application No. 016-2020) [2021] AfCHPR 10 (2 December 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.