doebbler v sudan communication 235 of 2000 2009 achpr 103 25 november 2009

doebbler v sudan communication 235 of 2000 2009 achpr 103 25 november 2009

The Commission found no evidence that Sudan forcibly repatriated, imprisoned, or denied basic necessities to Ethiopian refugees as a result of the cessation clause. The repatriation was found to be voluntary, and those who remained were granted protection or residence permits. The allegations of violations of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12(3), (4), (5) of the African Charter were not substantiated. The communication was filed in anticipation of violations that did not materialize after implementation of the cessation clause.

Citation
doebbler v sudan communication 235 of 2000 2009 achpr 103 25 november 2009
Parties
Complainant: Dr. Curtis Francis Doebbler; Respondent State: Sudan
Court
ACHPR
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
25 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Communication Before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights / Final Decision on Merits After Admissibility Review
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; no violation found.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Cessation Clause, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Right to Asylum, Due Process, State Responsibility, Mass Expulsion
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Refugee Law International Law Non Refoulement Cessation Clause Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Right to Asylum Due Process +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Curtis Francis Doebbler

Complainant

Sudan

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Communication Before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights / Final Decision on Merits After Admissibility Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sudan violated Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12(3), (4), (5) of the African Charter by its treatment of Ethiopian refugees after invoking the Cessation Clause.
  2. 2 Whether the principle of non-refoulement was breached by Sudan's actions.
  3. 3 Whether the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement was met or excused due to the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found no evidence that Sudan forcibly repatriated, imprisoned, or denied basic necessities to Ethiopian refugees as a result of the cessation clause. The repatriation was found to be voluntary, and those who remained were granted protection or residence permits. The allegations of violations of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12(3), (4), (5) of the African Charter were not substantiated. The communication was filed in anticipation of violations that did not materialize after implementation of the cessation clause.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; no violation found.