mouvement ivoirien des droits humains v cote divoire communication 246 of 2002 2008 achpr 88 29 july 2008

mouvement ivoirien des droits humains v cote divoire communication 246 of 2002 2008 achpr 88 29 july 2008

The Commission found that the eligibility requirements in Articles 35 and 65 of the Ivorian Constitution are unreasonable, unjustifiable, and discriminatory, violating the right to non-discrimination and political participation under Articles 2 and 13 of the African Charter. The immunity granted by Article 132 foreclosed access to remedies for victims, violating the right to equality before the law and effective remedy under Articles 3 and 7. The state failed to provide adequate justification for these restrictions and immunities, and did not demonstrate the availability of effective domestic remedies.

Citation
mouvement ivoirien des droits humains v cote divoire communication 246 of 2002 2008 achpr 88 29 july 2008
Parties
Complainant: Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains (MIDH); Respondent: Republic of Côte d'Ivoire
Court
ACHPR
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Communication / Decision on Merits
Outcome
Violation found
Legal Topics
Non Discrimination, Political Participation, Amnesty, Equality Before the Law, Effective Remedy
Source Language
English
Human Rights Constitutional Law International Law Non Discrimination Political Participation Amnesty Equality Before the Law Effective Remedy

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains (MIDH)

Complainant

Republic of Côte d'Ivoire

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Communication / Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Articles 35, 65, and 132 of the 2000 Constitution of Côte d'Ivoire violate Articles 2, 3, and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights by imposing discriminatory restrictions on political participation and granting immunity for human rights violations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that the eligibility requirements in Articles 35 and 65 of the Ivorian Constitution are unreasonable, unjustifiable, and discriminatory, violating the right to non-discrimination and political participation under Articles 2 and 13 of the African Charter. The immunity granted by Article 132 foreclosed access to remedies for victims, violating the right to equality before the law and effective remedy under Articles 3 and 7. The state failed to provide adequate justification for these restrictions and immunities, and did not demonstrate the availability of effective domestic remedies.

Court Disposition

Violation found

Orders

  • The Respondent State is found in violation of Articles 1, 2, 3(2), 7, and 13 of the African Charter.
  • The Respondent State is requested to take appropriate measures to remedy the situation, including reviewing discriminatory constitutional provisions.