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 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 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 African Court found Tanzania violated an inmate’s rights to life and dignity by imposing a mandatory death sentence and hanging, but not his fair-trial rights.
The African Court held Tanzania violated the Applicant’s rights to life and dignity by imposing a mandatory death sentence and hanging, but found no fair-trial violation.
The African Court dismissed Edison Simon Mwombeki’s claims against Tanzania, finding no violation of the rights to be heard, equal protection, or dignity.
The African Court found no fair-trial violation, but held that Tanzania’s mandatory death penalty and death by hanging violated rights to life and dignity.
The African Court held that Tanzania’s mandatory death penalty and hanging as a method of execution violated the rights to life and dignity.
The African Court held that Lompo Bahanla’s application against Burkina Faso was inadmissible because he had not exhausted local remedies, especially a pending cassation appeal.
The African Court held that Tanzania’s mandatory death penalty violated the rights to life and dignity, but rejected the Applicant’s fair trial claims.
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.
Explore more
