Kalilou and Another v Republic of Cote D'Ivoire
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 dismissed the applicants' request for provisional measures. The Court held that it has prima facie jurisdiction despite Cote d'Ivoire's withdrawal of its Article 34(6) Declaration, as withdrawal has no retroactive effect and does not affect pending matters. The Court found that the prayers for provisional measures were closely related to the merits and that the applicants failed to provide evidence supporting their request despite being given additional time to do so.
Outcome
Request for provisional measures dismissed; main applications remain pending
Facts
The applicants, Konate Kalilou and Doumbia Ibrahim, are Ivorian nationals serving twenty-year sentences at Maca Prison in Abidjan. On 14 June 2012, they were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Divo for armed robbery and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. On appeal, the Court of Appeal in Daloa reduced the sentence to fifteen years on 21 March 2013. The Supreme Court dismissed their further appeal on 24 February 2014. The applicants filed applications before the African Court alleging violations of their rights under the African Charter and ICCPR, claiming they were denied legal counsel during interrogation and suffered mental torture. They requested provisional measures including medical treatment and protection from psychological pressure by prison staff. On 29 April 2020, Cote d'Ivoire deposited an instrument withdrawing its Article 34(6) Declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction.
Issues
- Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to hear the applications.
- Whether the withdrawal of the Respondent State's Article 34(6) Declaration affects the Court's jurisdiction over pending matters.
- Whether the applicants have established extreme gravity and urgency warranting provisional measures.
- Whether the applicants have demonstrated risk of irreparable harm requiring interim relief.
Orders
- Request for provisional measures dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Cases cited (5)
- Amini Juma v United Republic of Tanzania (Provisional Measures) (2016) 1 AfCLR 687
- African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Libya (Provisional Measures) (2013) 1 AfCLR 149
- Komi Koutche v Republic of Benin (Application No. 020/2019)
- Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Rwanda (Jurisdiction) (2016) 1 AfCLR 562
- Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania (Provisional Measures) (2016) 1 AfCLR 611
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.