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 dismissed DRC’s request for expedited procedure, holding it could not abridge defence-related time limits, but listed the case for priority handling.
The Court rejected the request for expedited procedure because the respondent did not expressly waive its right to the 90-day response period, and the complexity of the case did not justify shortening the deliberation period. However, the Court decided to give priority to the examination of the application due to the seriousness of the alleged violations.
Source excerpt
The mandatory imposition of the death penalty under Tanzanian law deprived the applicant of judicial discretion and violated the right to life under Article 4 of the African Charter; execution by hanging violates the right to dignity under Article 5; no violation found regarding fair trial, family, or free movement rights as the conviction was based on sufficient evidence and proper procedure.
Source excerpt
The EACJ dismissed a Reference by nine Ugandan-based Rwandan applicants as time barred, holding that Article 30(2) of the Treaty deprived it of jurisdiction.
The Commission found that Burundi violated Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 16, and 18(1) of the African Charter by failing to prevent and punish acts of violence, torture, and repression against protestors and their families, denying them effective remedies, and failing to provide adequate medical care and protection to victims and their families. The state is responsible for the acts of its agents and must provide reparations, public apologies, and guarantees of non-repetition.
Source excerpt
Only Kouadio Kobena Fory is the proper applicant as his wife and children are indirect or vicarious victims and do not have standing as applicants in this case.
Source excerpt
Respondent State violated the Applicant's rights to defence, prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, right to life, and right to family under the African Charter. The Applicant was denied adequate facilities for defence, subjected to threats and deprivation in detention, and denied reasonable communication with family. The Court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations, including compensation and an order for independent medical assessment.
Source excerpt
The Court found violations of the applicant's rights to defence, to life, to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and to family, based on credible evidence of deprivation of medical care, inadequate food, restricted family contact, and threats in detention. The Court rejected claims regarding legal assistance and impartial tribunal due to insufficient proof, and awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations.
Source excerpt
The Commission found that the language used by the complainant was not disparaging within the meaning of Article 56(3), as it reflected honest perceptions and was supported by evidence. However, the complainant failed to exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5), since he had access to courts, was able to initiate proceedings even from abroad, and some matters were still pending domestically. The circumstances did not render local remedies unavailable or ineffective.
Source excerpt
Angola's mass expulsion of West African nationals was arbitrary, discriminatory, and denied the victims due process, violating articles 2, 7(1)(a), 12(4), 12(5), 14, and 18 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Source excerpt
Explore more
