Wakilii

Interights and Others v Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Communication 373 of 2009)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2010] ACHPR 105 · 2010 Review Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for review of the Commission's earlier decision on the merits of Communication 242/2001
Decision
Review application partly granted; earlier decision supplemented to address omitted violations; State ordered to pay compensation and reform legislation

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 Commission has competence to review its own decisions where an application introduces a new or compelling element. The earlier decision was infra petita for failing to address alleged violations of Articles 1, 2 and 14. The Commission found violations of Articles 1 and 14 but not Article 2. The allegation of partiality was dismissed on the basis that the complainants did not discharge their burden of proof.

Outcome

Review application partly granted; earlier decision supplemented to address omitted violations; State ordered to pay compensation and reform legislation

Facts

The complainants requested review of the Commission's earlier decision on Communication 242/2001 concerning the dissolution of the UFD/Ere Nouvelle political party by Mauritania and confiscation of its property. The earlier decision found a violation of Article 10(1) but did not pronounce on all allegations or grant remedies. The complainants alleged the decision was infra petita and that a Commissioner who was a national of Mauritania participated in deliberations in breach of the Rules of Procedure.

Issues

  1. Whether the African Commission has competence to review its own decision on the merits.
  2. Whether the Commission's earlier decision was infra petita for failing to address all allegations and failing to grant remedies.
  3. Whether a Commissioner who is a national of the respondent State participated in deliberations in violation of the Rules of Procedure.
  4. Whether the Respondent State violated Articles 1, 2 and 14 of the African Charter.

Orders

  • The decision on the merits of Communication 242/2001 is infra petita to the extent that it did not address violations of Articles 1, 2 and 14.
  • The Respondent State did not violate Article 2 of the African Charter.
  • The Respondent State violated Articles 1 and 14 of the African Charter.
  • The Complainants have not discharged their burden of proof regarding the allegation of partiality.
  • The Respondent State should pay adequate compensation to the victim for the loss suffered.
  • The Respondent State should take steps to ensure that its law on freedom of association is in conformity with the Charter.
  • The Respondent State should inform the Commission on measures adopted to implement these recommendations within 180 days.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Tribunal Powers — Power of Review of Own Decisions
The African Commission has competence to review its own decision on the merits where the application introduces a new or compelling element which, had the Commission had knowledge of, would have impacted on the decision, or where the Commission has inadvertently failed to take into account certain facts during consideration of the case.
Statutory Interpretation — Legal Concepts — Infra Petita Distinguished from Failure to Grant Remedies
A decision is infra petita where the tribunal fails to pronounce on one of the main claims or allegations of a petition. A tribunal's failure to grant remedies requested by a complainant does not render its decision infra petita if all allegations have been addressed, but failure to address all principal allegations does render the decision infra petita.
Statutory Interpretation — Legal Concepts — Allegation or Claim Distinguished from Prayer or Remedy
An allegation or claim is a legal action to obtain a remedy or the enforcement of a right against another party, being an assertion which a party intends to prove. A remedy is the means by which a right is enforced or the violation of a right is prevented, redressed or compensated. There is a clear distinction between an allegation and a remedy.
Human Rights — Right to Remedy — Duty to Provide Reparations for Violation
The right to a remedy for a violation has been firmly established under international law. Any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide appropriate reparations to ensure the injured party's enjoyment of the right or freedom that was violated.
Human Rights — Right to Property — Deprivation Only for Public Interest and in Accordance with Law
The right to property encompasses the principle of ownership and peaceful enjoyment, and the possibility and conditions of deprivation. States may deprive individuals of property in the public or general interest in accordance with law, but arbitrary confiscation of property without demonstration that it was for public interest or in accordance with established law violates Article 14 of the African Charter.
Administrative Law — Natural Justice — Nemo Judex in Sua Causa
The principle of nemo judex in sua causa, that no person is permitted to be a judge in their own cause, is critical in the administration of justice, for justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. A tribunal member who is a national of a respondent State must not take part in deliberations concerning that State.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Presumption of Regularity
In terms of the presumption of regularity, there is a favourable presumption that a tribunal does all that it does in the normal course of its duty regularly and validly. To overturn this presumption, the party that alleges non-compliance with rules bears the burden of proof.

Legislation cited (13)

  • 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 7(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 9(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 10(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 14
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission Article 109
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission Article 118(2)
  • Rules of Procedure of the African Commission Article 106
  • Inter-American Convention on Human Rights Article 63(1)
  • Statute of the International Court of Justice Article 61
  • Swiss Federal Statute on Private International Law Article 190(2)(c)

Cases cited (6)

  • Interights and Others v Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Communication 242 of 2001)
  • Purohit & Moore v The Gambia
  • Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v Paraguay (Series C No. 125 of 2005)
  • Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'Homme v Zambia (Communication 71 of 1992)
  • Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v Republic of Angola (Communication 292 of 2004)
  • Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and Others v Angola (Communication 159 of 1996)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Interights and Others v Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Communication 373 of 2009) [2010] ACHPR 105 (3 March 2010)
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.