Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Tanzania decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The African Court reopened pleadings in an electoral-rights case against Tanzania and allowed RFK Human Rights and IHRDA to intervene as amici curiae.
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to consider the application because the African Union and the African Union Commission are not State Parties to the Protocol, and only State Parties can be respondents before the Court.
Source excerpt
The Court held Tanzania violated the Applicant’s rights to life and dignity in relation to a mandatory death sentence and hanging, but rejected other claims.
The African Court found this human rights application inadmissible because the applicant had not exhausted local remedies, though it confirmed jurisdiction.
The African Court found Tanzania violated the Applicant’s right to free legal assistance in a rape case, but rejected claims about the conviction and sentence.
The African Court held it had jurisdiction but found the application inadmissible because the applicant did not exhaust local remedies, including cassation.
The application is inadmissible because the Applicant failed to exhaust available and effective local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules; the Applicant could have pursued direct action before domestic courts under Tunisian law.
Source excerpt
The Court found that Tanzania violated the rights of persons with albinism by failing to take sufficient measures to prevent, investigate, and punish attacks, killings, and discrimination; by failing to provide adequate education and health services; and by not ensuring the best interests of children with albinism. The State’s legislative and policy measures were found insufficient, and the violations were attributable to the State due to lack of due diligence and effective remedies.
Source excerpt
The application was declared inadmissible because the applicant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. The applicant did not pursue available remedies before the Constitutional Court, and did not demonstrate that the appeal proceedings were unduly prolonged due to State conduct. The Court found it had jurisdiction but dismissed the application for non-exhaustion of local remedies.
Source excerpt
The applicant did not exhaust available domestic remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, since he could have pursued further judicial actions under national law. The application is therefore inadmissible.
Source excerpt
Explore more
