Wakilii

Subaie v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 612 of 2016)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2018] ACHPR 138 · 2018 Communication Struck Out 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 human rights violations by the Arab Republic of Egypt
Decision
Communication struck out without consideration of merits

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 struck out the communication for lack of diligent prosecution. The complainants failed to submit arguments on admissibility despite multiple requests and reminders over more than one year. Rule 105(1) requires complainants to present admissibility arguments within two months of the Commission being seized of a communication. The complainants did not request an extension of time under Rule 113 and provided no sufficient information for the Commission to determine admissibility.

Outcome

Communication struck out without consideration of merits

Facts

The complainants submitted a communication on 23 March 2016 on behalf of Ahmed Mohammed Aly Subaie alleging human rights violations by Egypt. The complainants alleged that Subaie was abducted on 4 October 2013, detained without minimum rights, denied a lawyer, subjected to torture in Scorpion Prison, and sentenced to life imprisonment on fabricated charges related to the Rabi'a sit-ins. The Secretariat seized the communication during the 19th Extra-Ordinary Session in April 2016 and requested admissibility submissions by 19 June 2016. Despite repeated reminders by letters and Notes Verbale dated 19 April 2016, 23 June 2016, 15 November 2016, and 16 March 2017, the complainants never submitted admissibility arguments. One complainant acknowledged receipt of the November 2016 and March 2017 letters on 12 April 2017 but still did not respond.

Issues

  1. Whether the complainant diligently prosecuted the communication before the African Commission.
  2. Whether the communication should be struck out for failure to submit admissibility arguments within the prescribed time.

Orders

  • Communication struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.

Rules and key headnotes

Administrative Law — Procedural Requirements — Diligent Prosecution of Communications
A communication before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights may be struck out for lack of diligent prosecution where the complainant fails to submit admissibility arguments within the prescribed time and does not request an extension.
Administrative Law — Rules of Procedure — Time Limits for Submissions
Rule 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission requires a complainant to present arguments on admissibility within two months of the Commission being seized of a communication.
Administrative Law — Extension of Time — Procedure for Requesting Extension
Under Rule 113 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, where a deadline is fixed for a particular submission, a party may request an extension of time and the Commission may grant an extension of up to one month.

Cases cited (3)

  • Argaryan and Artur Sargsyan v Republic of Kenya (Communication 407 of 2011)
  • Communication 387/10
  • Communication 427/12 - SERAP (on behalf of...)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Subaie v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 612 of 2016) [2018] ACHPR 138 (6 March 2018)
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.