Wakilii

PROJUST NGO v Democratic Republic of Congo (Communication 278 of 2003)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2012] ACHPR 114 · 2012 Communication Dismissed as Inadmissible AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights alleging violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
Decision
Communication dismissed as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies

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 Commission declared the Communication inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. Although the victims were acquitted by the Military Court, they did not pursue available domestic remedies for the alleged torture and property confiscation. The Commission held that victims must provide prima facie evidence of attempting to exhaust local remedies, and that the State must be given the opportunity to remedy violations through its own legal system before international intervention.

Outcome

Communication dismissed as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies

Facts

Six Congolese women were arrested in lieu of their husbands, who were alleged to have participated in the assassination of President Laurent Désiré Kabila on 16 January 2001. The women were detained at GLM jail where they were allegedly tortured, then transferred to Kinshasa Penitentiary in March 2001. After one year of detention without charges and limited access to lawyers, they were brought before the Military Court on 13 March 2002, accused of belonging to the Masasu group. After ten months of trial, all accused were acquitted. Despite acquittal, their property was allegedly confiscated. PROJUST NGO filed a Communication with the African Commission alleging violations of Articles 5, 7, and 14 of the African Charter. The Respondent State challenged admissibility on grounds of non-exhaustion of local remedies.

Issues

  1. Whether the Communication meets the admissibility requirements under Article 56(5) of the African Charter, specifically whether local remedies were exhausted before bringing the matter to the African Commission.
  2. Whether the Communication meets the admissibility requirements under Article 56(6) of the African Charter, specifically whether it was submitted within a reasonable time period from the exhaustion of local remedies.

Orders

  • Communication declared inadmissible because it does not meet the requirements under Article 56(5) and 56(6) of the African Charter.
  • Decision to be notified to the Parties in conformity with Article 107(3) of the African Commission's Rules of Procedure.
  • Decision to be attached to the 32nd Activity Report.

Rules and key headnotes

Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Burden of Proof
When a Government argues that a Communication should be declared inadmissible because local remedies have not been exhausted, that Government has the responsibility of proving the existence of such remedies.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Objective and Rationale
The objective of the condition of exhaustion of local remedies is to allow the State to remedy, in conformity with its local legislation, the alleged human rights violation before it is brought before an international body, preventing the Commission from acting as a court of first instance rather than a body of last resort.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Prima Facie Evidence Required
A complainant must provide prima facie evidence of an attempt to exhaust local remedies, and the simple fact that a local remedy is untimely, unappealing, or does not culminate in a result favourable to the plaintiff does not in itself prove the non-exhaustion of all effective local remedies.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Duty to Attempt Remedies
Even where complainants have reasons to believe that available local remedies and possible appeals are likely to be ineffective, they should still seek these remedies, as it is generally up to the victim to provide the national courts with the opportunity to exercise existing rights for interpretation purposes.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of Local Remedies — Separate Violations Require Separate Pursuit
Where a complainant alleges multiple violations arising from different circumstances, acquittal by a court on criminal charges does not exhaust local remedies for separate claims of torture during detention or confiscation of property, which must be pursued independently through available domestic legal channels.
Admissibility — Reasonable Time Requirement — Dependency on Exhaustion
The requirement under Article 56(6) that a Communication be submitted within a reasonable time period is tied to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, such that where local remedies have not been exhausted, the reasonable time requirement is automatically not met.

Legislation cited (19)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 5
  • 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 55
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 10
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 11(1)
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 17
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 7
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 9(3)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(1)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(2)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(5)
  • Decree No. 019 of 23/08/1997 Article 5
  • Congolese Constitution Article 15
  • Congolese Constitution Article 150(3)
  • Congolese Constitution Article 180
  • Congolese Criminal Code (Decree of 30 January 1940) Article 180

Cases cited (8)

  • Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (Communications 147/95 and 149/96)
  • Mohamed Lamine Diakité v Gabon (Communication 73/92)
  • National Human Rights and Liberties Commission v Chad (Communication 74/92)
  • Amnesty International v Sudan (Communication 48/90)
  • Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (Communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 100/93)
  • Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l'homme v Zambia (Communication 71/92)
  • Obert Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (Communication 307/5)
  • Article 19 v Eritrea (Communication 275/03)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

PROJUST NGO v Democratic Republic of Congo (Communication 278 of 2003) [2012] ACHPR 114 (1 March 2012)
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.