johnson v republic of ghana ruling application no 0162017 2019 afchpr 7 28 march 2019

johnson v republic of ghana ruling application no 0162017 2019 afchpr 7 28 march 2019

The application is inadmissible because the same matter, involving the same parties and issues, has already been settled by the UN Human Rights Committee, which constitutes an international body legally mandated to consider such disputes. The fact that the HRC's views have not been implemented or are not binding does not alter the settled nature of the matter under Article 56(7) of the Charter.

Citation
johnson v republic of ghana ruling application no 0162017 2019 afchpr 7 28 march 2019
Parties
Applicant: Dexter Eddie Johnson; Respondent State: Republic of Ghana
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible by majority decision; Court has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Death Penalty, Right to Life, Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Right to Fair Trial, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Admissibility of Applications, Non Bis in Idem
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law International Law Criminal Law Death Penalty Right to Life Prohibition of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Right to Fair Trial Exhaustion of Local Remedies +2 more

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 2 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dexter Eddie Johnson

Applicant

Republic of Ghana

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory death penalty violates the right to life, prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and right to fair trial under the Charter and other instruments
  2. 2 Whether the application is admissible in light of prior proceedings before the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC)
  3. 3 Whether the matter has been settled within the meaning of Article 56(7) of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

The application is inadmissible because the same matter, involving the same parties and issues, has already been settled by the UN Human Rights Committee, which constitutes an international body legally mandated to consider such disputes. The fact that the HRC's views have not been implemented or are not binding does not alter the settled nature of the matter under Article 56(7) of the Charter.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible by majority decision; Court has jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Court has jurisdiction to hear the application.
  • Application is inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the Charter.