Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Democratic Republic of Congo (Communication 247 of 2002)
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
Held that the communication was inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. The complainant left DRC in 1997 but did not bring the communication until 2002. There was no evidence he attempted to exhaust local remedies while in Togo, nor that his wife attempted remedies while she remained in DRC until 2002. The complainant failed to provide evidence of moral and material constraints preventing exhaustion of remedies. Article 56(5) requires exhaustion unless the procedure is unduly prolonged or remedies are unavailable in practice, neither of which was established.
Outcome
Communication declared inadmissible
Facts
Jean Simbarakiye, a Burundian refugee in DRC since 1974, was employed as a civil electrical engineer by ONATRA. In October 1996, the Haut Conseil de la République adopted Resolution No. 04/HCR6PT/96 terminating work contracts for all Rwandan, Burundian and Ugandan subjects. Pursuant to this resolution, Simbarakiye was dismissed on 3 January 1997 without notice or compensation solely for being of Burundi origin. He left DRC in June 1997 and took refuge in Togo. He made contact with DRC authorities in Togo and sent a letter to the DRC Minister of Justice in February 2000, but these efforts were unsuccessful. His wife remained in DRC until 2000 but her efforts were also unsuccessful. The communication was filed with the African Commission in April 2002, alleging violations of the African Charter.
Issues
- Whether the communication should be declared admissible where the complainant alleges inability to exhaust local remedies due to moral and material pressure.
- Whether the condition of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter applies where the complainant fled the respondent state and did not attempt remedies from abroad or through his wife who remained in the state.
Orders
- Communication declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (8)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 18
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56(5)
Cases cited (6)
- Annette Pagnoule on behalf of Abdoulaye Mazou v Cameroon (Communication 39 of 1990)
- Alhassan Abubakar v Ghana (Communication 103 of 1993)
- Dawda Jawara v The Gambia (Communications 147 of 1995 and 149 of 1996)
- Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (Communications 25 of 1989, 47 of 1990, 56 of 1991, 100 of 1994)
- Rencontre Africaine pour la Défense des Droits de l'Homme v Zambia (Communication 71 of 1992)
- Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés v Chad (Communication 74 of 1992)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.