Wakilii

Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005-2013)

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2017] AfCHPR 1 · 2017 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interpretation of judgment of 20 November 2015 filed by the Respondent State
Decision
Application for interpretation granted with clarification of the meaning and scope of the original judgment's operative provisions

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 Court interpreted its judgment of 20 November 2015, clarifying that 'all necessary measures' includes the release of the Applicant or any other measure that would erase the consequences of the violations established and restore the pre-existing situation. The term 'precluding' means prohibiting the reopening of the defence case and retrial of the Applicant. The Respondent State must remedy violations of the right to a fair trial found in the original judgment.

Outcome

Application for interpretation granted with clarification of the meaning and scope of the original judgment's operative provisions

Facts

The United Republic of Tanzania filed an application for interpretation of the Court's judgment of 20 November 2015 in Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania. The original judgment found violations of the right to a fair trial and ordered the Respondent State to take all necessary measures to remedy the violations, specifically precluding the reopening of the defence case and retrial of the Applicant. The Respondent State sought clarification on the meaning of 'all necessary measures', which violations were to be remedied, and the meaning of 'precluding'. The Applicant, Alex Thomas, opposed the application, noting it was filed out of time and that the Respondent had failed to implement the original judgment or report on compliance within six months as ordered. The Court granted an extension of time in the interest of justice.

Issues

  1. What is the meaning of the expression 'all necessary measures' used in the operative provisions of the judgment of 20 November 2015?
  2. What violations are to be remedied and how should they be remedied?
  3. What is the meaning of the word 'precluding' in the context of the order specifically precluding the reopening of the defence case and the retrial of the Applicant?

Orders

  • Declared that it has jurisdiction to hear the Application.
  • Declared that the Application is admissible.
  • Ruled that by the expression 'all necessary measures', the Court was referring to the release of the Applicant or any other measure that would help erase the consequences of the violations established, restore the pre-existing situation and re-establish the rights of the Applicant.
  • Ruled that the expression 'remedy the violations found' means 'erase the effects of the violations found' through the adoption of the measures indicated.
  • Ruled that the term 'precluding' means 'rule out or prohibit', which, when read together with the expression 'reopening of the defence case and the retrial of the Applicant' means that the reopening of the defence case and the retrial of the Applicant is ruled out.
  • Ruled that each Party shall bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Human Rights — Interpretation of Judgments — Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Under Article 28(4) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its own decisions. An application for interpretation is admissible if it aims to facilitate execution of the judgment, is filed within twelve months unless the Court decides otherwise in the interest of justice, and clearly states the points in the operative provisions requiring interpretation.
Human Rights — Remedies for Violations — Reparation Principle
Reparation for human rights violations should, as far as possible, erase the consequences of the unlawful act and restore the state which would have presumably existed if the act had not been committed. The most appropriate remedy for violation of the right to a fair trial is to act in such a way that the victim finds himself or herself in the situation that he or she would have been in had the violation not been committed.
Human Rights — Remedies for Violations — Meaning of 'All Necessary Measures'
The expression 'all necessary measures' to remedy violations of the right to a fair trial includes the release of the applicant or any other measure that would help erase the consequences of the violations established, restore the pre-existing situation, and re-establish the rights of the applicant. The State has discretion to identify and activate measures that eliminate the effects of the violations.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Retrial — Prohibition Where Prejudicial
Where an applicant has already served a substantial portion of a prison sentence (in this case twenty-one years of a thirty-year sentence), reopening the case or ordering a retrial would not be a just measure, particularly given that a fresh judicial procedure could be lengthy. The Court may prohibit retrial where it would result in prejudice to the applicant.

Legislation cited (10)

  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 28(4)
  • Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 27(1)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(a)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(c)
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 7(1)(d)
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14(3)(d)
  • Penal Code Chapter 16 Section 27(2)
  • Penal Code Section 38
  • Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Section 45

Cases cited (1)

  • Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005-2013) [2017] AfCHPR 122 (28 September 2017)
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.