[2013] AfCHPR 32



UNI.~O AFRICANA

# AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS COUR AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DES PEUPLES

## IN THE MATTER OF

## AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS

v.

#### GREAT SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA

#### APPLICATION No. 004/2011

ORDER

**The Court composed of:** Sophia A. B. AKUFFO, President; Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ, Vice President; Bernard M. NGOEPE, Gerard NIYUNGEKO, Augustine S. L. RAMADHANI , Duncan TAMBALA, Elsie N THOMPSON, Sylvain ORE, Ben KIOKO, El Hadji GUISSE and Kimelabalou ABA- Judges; and Robert ENO - Registrar,

In the matter of.

**African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights** *v.* **Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya**

**After deliberations; makes the following Order:**

- **1.** By an Application dated 3 March 2011 , received at the Registry of the Court on 16 March 2011 , the Afncan Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as ''the Applicanf'), brought an act1on aga1nst the Great Soc1ahst People's Libyan Arab Jamah1nya (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondenf'), alleg1ng "serious and massive violation of human rights" guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter"); - 2 By letter of 22 March 2011 , the Respondent was notified of the application 1n accordance with Rule 35(2)(a) of the Rules of Court, and the Respondent was inv1ted to indicate the names and addresses of its

representatives within th1rty (30) days, and to respond to the Application w1thin sixty (60) days, In accordance with Rule 37 of the Rules of Court;

- 3. By letter of 22 March 2011 , and 1n accordance with Rule 35(3) of the Rules of Court, the Registry of the Court informed the Chairperson of the Afncan Un1on Comm1ss1on and, through him, the Executive Council and all States Part1es to the Protocol, of the submission of the said application; - 4 By letter dated 13 June 2011 , the Pan African Lawyers' Union ('PALU') applied to the Court for leave to participate as amicus curiae in the application, and at its 24¹ h Ordinary Session, the Court granted PALU leave as prayed; - 5. On 23 March 2011 , the Court notified the parties that, in accordance with art1cle 27(2) of the Protocol and Rule 51 (1) of 1ts Rules, it had the power, on its own and without having to hear the parties, to order prov1s1onal measures 1n view of the urgency and gravity of the situation, - 6. On 25 March 2011 , the Court issued an order of prov1s1onal measures, receipt of which the Respondent acknowledged on 2 April 2011 ; - 7 On 13 April 2011 , the Court received the Respondent's reaction to the Order of provisional measures;

- 8 On 18 May, 2011 , the Registry received a letter from the Embassy of Lrbya rn Addrs Ababa in Ethropia, requesting for three weeks' extensron of time for the Respondent to submit its response to the applrcation, - 9 On 8 June, 2011 . during its 21 81 Ordinary Session, and before the Court had considered the Respondent's request for extensron of time, the Registry received both the Respondent's notification of the name and address of its representatrve and its response to the application dated 7 June, 2011 , - 10. On 16 June 2011 , the Court decrded to extend the trme for the Respondent to submit its response to the application to 8 June, 2011 , the date on which the Court received the Respondent's response communicating the names and addresses of its representatives, as well as rts response to the application; - 11 By letter of 18 June, 2011 , the Registry transmrtted to the Applicant, the Respondent's response to the application, and indicated that the Applicant should submit its reply within thirty (30) days of the date of recerpt of the letter - 12 On 28 June, 2011 . the Regrstry received a letter from the Applrcant requestrng for extension of time for its reply, up to 30 September, 2011 ; - 13 On 2 September, 2011 , the Court decrded to extend the trme for the Applrcant to file its reply to 30 September, 2011 ,

- 14 By letter dated 28 September, 2011 , the Applicant requested the Court for a second extension of time for its reply, for a further period of one year, 'to allow the s1tuat1on 1n Libya to evolve sufficiently to perm1t the gathering of the required evidence'; - 15. During 1ts 23ro Ordinary Sess1on, the Court decided to serve the Applicant's request for extension of time on the Respondent, - 16 By letter dated 22 December, 2011 , the Registry served on the Respondent the Applicant's request for extension of t1me - 17. Dunng its 24th Ordmary Session held from 19 to 30 March, 2012, the Court noted that the Respondent had not reacted to the Applicant's request, and decided to extend the time for the Applicant to f1le its reply to 31 August, 2012; - 18. By letter dated 2 May, 2012 and rece1ved at the Registry on 15 June 2012, the Representative of the Respondent requested the Court to 'drop the case' as the Respondent government is no longer in existent; - 19 By separate letters of 27 June, 2012, the Applicant, as well as PALU, were served with copies of the Respondent's letter of 2 May, - 20 By letter dated 28 August, 2012, received at the Reg1stry on 30 August, 2012, the Applicant requested that the matter be 'stood down until the Circumstances on the ground in Libya permit the gathering of the necessary ev1dences and test1mon1es',

- 21 . At its 25th Ordinary Session, the Court noted that the deadline given to the Applicant to submit its reply had not expired , and decided to wait for the expiration of the deadline before taking a dectsion; - 22 At its 26¹ h Ordinary Session held in September, 2012, the Court considered the request by the Applicant to adjourn the matter indefinitely, and decided that the request for adjournment should be served on the Respondent as well as on PALU, and they should be given thirty (30) days wtthin which to respond; - 23 By separate letters of 24 September, 2012, the Respondent. as well as PALU, were served with copies of the Applicant's request, and were given 30 days within which to respond They were due to respond by 24 October, 2012; - 24 The Court further decided that it would take a decision on the way forward regarding the Application during its 28¹ h Ordinary Session 1n Mar·ch, 2013, if the Applicant has still not provided any information; - 25. At its 2ih Ordinary Session, the Court noted that the Applicant had not made any additional submission . and neither had the Respondent nor PALU. - 26 As at the 15¹ ^hof March, 2013, the Applicant had not reacted to the Respondent's request and ne1ther the Respondent nor PALU had Responded to the Regtstry's letter;

#### **Now Therefore:**

- a. The Court finds that the Applicant has failed to file 1ts Reply within the extended time, that is, 31 August, 2012, and instead has tried to preempt that order by requesting an Indefinite extension of time by its letter of 28 August, 2012; - b The Court, consequently, finds that the Applicant has failed to pursue the Application which was filed on 3 March, 2011 . - c The Court also finds that the Applicant has failed to respond to the Respondent's request to have the case dropped, which request has been served on the Applicant.

#### **For these reasons,**

THE COURT, acting by its mherent power, unanimously ORDERS that the Application herein be and the same is HEREBY struck out

Done in Arusha, th1s fifteenth day of March in the year Two Thousand

**Signed: Sophia A. B. AKUFFO, Presi Robert ENO, Registrar** ~