Tanzania Case Law

noudehouenou c republique du benin requete n0042020 2022 afchpr 61 15 aout 2022

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the applicant provided sufficient evidence of serious health issues and that failure to access medical care and his medical file could result in irreparable harm. The respondent did not contest the existence of the applicant's medical records at the CNHU. Therefore, the Court ordered the respondent to remove all obstacles to the applicant's access to medical care and to provide him with a copy of his medical file. Other requested measures were denied due to lack of evidence, lack of urgency, or because they had already been addressed in previous orders.

Source excerpt

• Provisional measures
• Right to health
• Right to fair trial
• Due process
• Right to property
• Right to work

Read case analysis

el sharkawi represented by eipr and osji v republic of egypt communication 39611 2021 achpr 521 20 october 2021

Court

ACHPR

The Commission found that the victim was subjected to torture, incommunicado detention, and degrading conditions in violation of Article 5; his detention was arbitrary, unlawful, and not under effective judicial control in violation of Article 6; he was denied fair trial rights, including access to counsel and timely trial, in violation of Article 7 and 26; his rights to freedom of religion, health, and family life were violated under Articles 8, 16, and 18; and the state failed to provide redress or adequate legislative safeguards as required by Article 1. The Commission held that Egypt's le…

Source excerpt

• Torture
• Arbitrary detention
• Fair trial
• Right to health
• Right to family life
• Freedom of religion

Read case analysis

gihana and others v rwanda application 17 of 2015 2019 afchpr 47 28 november 2019

Court

TANZLII

The Court found that the Respondent State arbitrarily revoked the applicants’ passports without legal justification or procedural safeguards, violating their rights to freedom of movement and political participation under Articles 12(2) and 13(1) of the Charter. The Court held that local remedies were not available or effective due to the applicants’ circumstances and fears for their safety. The revocation did not amount to deprivation of nationality or statelessness, and claims regarding liberty, family life, and work were unsubstantiated.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of movement
• Political participation
• Nationality
• Statelessness
• Right to work
• Right to family life

Read case analysis

diakite v gabon communication 73 of 1992 2000 achpr 20 11 may 2000

Court

ACHPR

The African Commission held Mohammed Lamine Diakité’s communication against Gabon inadmissible because he had not exhausted local remedies.

• Expulsion of aliens
• Exhaustion of local remedies
• Right to family life
• Right to property
• Exhaustion-of-local-remedies
• Expulsion-of-aliens

Read case analysis

amnesty international v zambia communication 212 of 1998 1999 achpr 1 5 may 1999

Court

ACHPR

The African Commission found Zambia violated the Charter by deporting Banda and Chinula without due process, adequate reasons, or fair hearing.

• Deportation
• Due process
• Freedom of movement
• Freedom of association
• Freedom of expression
• Non-discrimination

Read case analysis

malawi african association and others v mauritania communication 164 of 1997 communication 196 of 1997 communication 210 of 1998 communication 54 of 1991 communic

Court

TANZLII

The Commission found that Mauritania committed grave and massive violations of the African Charter, including arbitrary detention, torture, executions, discrimination, denial of fair trial, deprivation of property, health, and family rights, and practices analogous to slavery. The amnesty law did not bar international responsibility. The respondent failed to refute the factual allegations, and the violations were established by the evidence and admissions.

Source excerpt

• Arbitrary detention
• Torture
• Discrimination
• Slavery
• Fair trial
• Freedom of expression

Read case analysis