mariko v republic of mali 2022 afchpr 6 24 march 2022

mariko v republic of mali 2022 afchpr 6 24 march 2022

Respondent State violated the applicant's rights to be tried within a reasonable time, to an effective remedy, and to adversarial proceedings, failed to guarantee the independence of the Constitutional Court, and did not establish and strengthen independent and impartial electoral bodies. No violation found regarding impartiality of the tribunal, equality before the law, transparent electoral lists, or right to vote and be elected.

Citation
mariko v republic of mali 2022 afchpr 6 24 march 2022
Parties
Applicant: Oumar Mariko; Respondent State: Republic of Mali
Court
TANZLII
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application partly allowed, partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Judicial Independence, Electoral Body Independence, Adversarial Proceedings, Effective Remedy, Equality Before the Law, Electoral Dispute Resolution, Transparent Electoral Lists, Right to Vote and Be Elected
Source Language
English
Human Rights Constitutional Law Electoral Law Right to Fair Trial Judicial Independence Electoral Body Independence Adversarial Proceedings Effective Remedy +4 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 8 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oumar Mariko

Applicant

Republic of Mali

Respondent State

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Violation of right to be tried within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Violation of adversarial principle
  3. 3 Violation of right to effective remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent State violated the applicant's rights to be tried within a reasonable time, to an effective remedy, and to adversarial proceedings, failed to guarantee the independence of the Constitutional Court, and did not establish and strengthen independent and impartial electoral bodies. No violation found regarding impartiality of the tribunal, equality before the law, transparent electoral lists, or right to vote and be elected.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed, partly dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent State to pay applicant 1,000,000 CFA francs for moral prejudice within six months, with interest thereafter.
  • Respondent State to amend laws governing Constitutional Court to ensure adversarial proceedings and recusal procedures within three years.