lawyers for human rights swaziland v kingdom of swaziland communication 41412 2013 achpr 122 24 july 2013

lawyers for human rights swaziland v kingdom of swaziland communication 41412 2013 achpr 122 24 july 2013

The Commission found that although local remedies were exhausted, the complainant failed to submit the communication within a reasonable period (34 months) after exhaustion, with no compelling explanation for the delay, thus failing Article 56(6) of the Charter.

Citation
lawyers for human rights swaziland v kingdom of swaziland communication 41412 2013 achpr 122 24 july 2013
Parties
Complainant: Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland); Respondent State: The Kingdom of Swaziland
Court
ACHPR
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Communication / Admissibility Decision
Outcome
Communication declared inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(6) of the Charter.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Complaints, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Political Participation, Ban on Political Parties, Constitution Making Process
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Admissibility of Complaints Exhaustion of Local Remedies Political Participation Ban on Political Parties Constitution Making Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawyers for Human Rights (Swaziland)

Complainant

The Kingdom of Swaziland

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Communication / Admissibility Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint meets admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter
  2. 2 Whether local remedies were exhausted
  3. 3 Whether the complaint was submitted within a reasonable period after exhaustion of local remedies

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that although local remedies were exhausted, the complainant failed to submit the communication within a reasonable period (34 months) after exhaustion, with no compelling explanation for the delay, thus failing Article 56(6) of the Charter.

Court Disposition

Communication declared inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 56(6) of the Charter.

Orders

  • Notification of decision to parties in accordance with Rule 107(3) of Rules of Procedure