majuru v zimbabwe communication 308 of 2005 2008 achpr 95 24 november 2008

majuru v zimbabwe communication 308 of 2005 2008 achpr 95 24 november 2008

The complainant failed to exhaust available local remedies in Zimbabwe and did not provide sufficient evidence that such remedies were unavailable or ineffective. Furthermore, the communication was submitted after an unreasonable delay of 22 months without convincing justification. Therefore, the requirements of Article 56(5) and (6) of the African Charter were not met, rendering the communication inadmissible.

Citation
majuru v zimbabwe communication 308 of 2005 2008 achpr 95 24 november 2008
Parties
Complainant: Michael Majuru; Respondent State: Republic of Zimbabwe
Court
ACHPR
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Communication (human Rights Complaint) / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
Communication declared inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Admissibility of Communications, Judicial Independence, Right to Personal Integrity, Right to Security of Person
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law International Law Exhaustion of Local Remedies Admissibility of Communications Judicial Independence Right to Personal Integrity Right to Security of Person

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Majuru

Complainant

Republic of Zimbabwe

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Communication (human Rights Complaint) / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the communication is admissible under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
  2. 2 Whether the complainant exhausted local remedies or was exempted from doing so
  3. 3 Whether the communication was submitted within a reasonable period

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant failed to exhaust available local remedies in Zimbabwe and did not provide sufficient evidence that such remedies were unavailable or ineffective. Furthermore, the communication was submitted after an unreasonable delay of 22 months without convincing justification. Therefore, the requirements of Article 56(5) and (6) of the African Charter were not met, rendering the communication inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Communication declared inadmissible.