Pereira v Republic of Guinea-Bissau (Application No. 012-2024)
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 applicant's request for provisional measures seeking suspension of a criminal summons. The Court held that the applicant failed to prove extreme gravity, urgency, or irreparable harm. The delay of over one month between the summons and filing the application negated urgency, and mere allegations of inability to manage affairs abroad due to a travel ban were insufficient to establish irreparable harm.
Outcome
Request for provisional measures dismissed; ruling does not prejudge jurisdiction, admissibility, or merits of the main application
Facts
The applicant, a former Prime Minister of Guinea-Bissau, was implicated in criminal proceedings in 2015. The Public Prosecutor closed the investigation in 2016, and a judge dismissed case No. 02/2018 for insufficient evidence. Despite these decisions, an INTERPOL Red Notice was issued against the applicant. In February 2022, the prosecutor annulled the suspect designation and revoked the red notice. However, the Attorney General subsequently reopened case No. 02/2018 and reinstated the travel ban. The Court of Appeal declared the Attorney General's order void and unconstitutional in July 2022. On 31 July 2024, a new summons was issued linking the applicant to criminal proceedings No. 2/2018, and a new travel ban was allegedly imposed. The applicant filed this application on 30 September 2024, seeking provisional measures to suspend the summons.
Issues
- Whether the Court has prima facie jurisdiction to entertain the request for provisional measures.
- Whether the applicant has demonstrated extreme gravity and urgency warranting provisional measures.
- Whether the applicant has proven that irreparable harm will occur absent provisional measures.
Orders
- Request for provisional measures dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (9)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 12
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 13(1)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 15
- African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 26
- Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3(1)
- 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)
- Rules of Court Rule 49(1)
Cases cited (3)
- Komi Koutche v Republic of Benin (Provisional Measures) (2019)
- Sébastien Ajavon v Republic of Benin (Provisional Measures) (2020)
- Symon Vuwa Kaunda and 5 Others v Republic of Malawi (Provisional Measures) (2021)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.