CDHR v Nigeria (Communication 62 of 1991) [1995] ACHPR 3 (22 March 1995)
The Commission closed the file due to loss of contact with the complainant after repeated reminders went unanswered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1995] ACHPR 3
- Parties
- Complainant: Committee for the Defense of Human Rights; Respondent: Nigeria
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Jurisdiction
- Ghana
- Judgment Date
- 22 March 1995
- Case Number
- Communication 62 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Communication / Decision
- Outcome
- file closed
- Legal Topics
- Arbitrary Detention, Political Motivation in Detention, Loss of Contact With Complainant
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Committee for the Defense of Human Rights
Complainant
Nigeria
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Communication / Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the detention of the individual was politically motivated
- 2 Whether the communication should proceed in light of loss of contact with the complainant
Ratio Decidendi
The Commission closed the file due to loss of contact with the complainant after repeated reminders went unanswered.
Court Disposition
file closed
Orders
- The file is closed due to loss of contact with the complainant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Undated Communication No. 62/91 AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS COMMITTEE FOR THE DEFENSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS v. NIGERIA DECISION Citation: Comm. for the Def. of Human Rights v. Nig., Comm. 62/91, 8th ACHPR AAR Annex VI (1994-1995) Publications: IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoples’ Rights Extracted from the Commission’s Activity Reports 1994-2001, at 196 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, at 387 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001) OR Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Vol. 2, at ___ (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2009); (2000) AHRLR 183 (ACHPR 1995) COMPLAINT The case concerned an individual detained on charges of drug dealing. The [1] complainant committee alleged that the detention was politically motivated. The Commission received information that the detainee was freed and subsequently inquired of the complainant if it wished to pursue the case. FINDING These inquiries went unanswered despite two reminders. The Commission therefore [2] decided that the file be closed because of loss of contact with the complainant.