chinhamo v zimbabwe communication 307 of 2005 2007 achpr 80 28 november 2007

chinhamo v zimbabwe communication 307 of 2005 2007 achpr 80 28 november 2007

The complainant failed to substantiate that he fled Zimbabwe involuntarily due to acts attributable to the respondent state and did not attempt to exhaust available and accessible local remedies, including those that could be pursued from abroad. The communication therefore does not fulfill the requirement under Article 56(5) of the African Charter and is inadmissible.

Citation
chinhamo v zimbabwe communication 307 of 2005 2007 achpr 80 28 november 2007
Parties
Complainant: Mr Obert Chinhamo; Respondent State: Republic of Zimbabwe
Court
ACHPR
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Communication (individual Complaint) / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Communication declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Admissibility of Communications, Torture and Inhuman Treatment, Right to Fair Trial, Freedom of Movement, Right to Privacy
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law International Law Exhaustion of Local Remedies Admissibility of Communications Torture and Inhuman Treatment Right to Fair Trial Freedom of Movement Right to Privacy

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Obert Chinhamo

Complainant

Republic of Zimbabwe

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Communication (individual Complaint) / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the communication is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter
  2. 2 Whether the complainant exhausted local remedies or was exempted from doing so
  3. 3 Whether the complainant substantiated claims of torture, intimidation, and threats to life

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant failed to substantiate that he fled Zimbabwe involuntarily due to acts attributable to the respondent state and did not attempt to exhaust available and accessible local remedies, including those that could be pursued from abroad. The communication therefore does not fulfill the requirement under Article 56(5) of the African Charter and is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Communication declared inadmissible