[2021] ACHPR 11

[2021] ACHPR 11

The African Commission found that the Complaint, while alleging widespread internet shutdowns across 28 States, failed to provide specific, substantiated evidence or detailed information regarding the nature of the alleged violations, the authorities responsible, or the consequences in each Respondent State. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ACHPR 11
Parties
Applicant: African Freedom of Expression Exchange & 15 Others (Represented by FOI Attorneys); Respondent: Algeria & 27 Others
Court
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Communication 742 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Communication / Decision on Seizure
Outcome
not_seized
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Internet Shutdowns, Access to Information, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Association
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Telecoms and Media Freedom of Expression Internet Shutdowns Access to Information Freedom of Assembly Freedom of Association

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

African Freedom of Expression Exchange & 15 Others (Represented by FOI Attorneys)

Applicant

Algeria & 27 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Communication / Decision on Seizure

  1. 1 Whether the actions of the Respondent States in shutting down or instigating the shutdown of the internet violate Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the African Charter.
  2. 2 Whether the Commission has jurisdiction over all Respondent States, including Somaliland and Morocco.
  3. 3 Whether the Complaint meets the criteria for seizure under Rule 93(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (2010).

Ratio Decidendi

The African Commission found that the Complaint, while alleging widespread internet shutdowns across 28 States, failed to provide specific, substantiated evidence or detailed information regarding the nature of the alleged violations, the authorities responsible, or the consequences in each Respondent State. The submissions were deemed vague and general, lacking the necessary preliminary evidence to support a finding of a prima facie violation of the African Charter. Furthermore, the Commission determined it lacked jurisdiction over Somaliland and Morocco, as they are not State Parties to the African Charter. Consequently, the Complaint did not meet the criteria for seizure under Rule...

Court Disposition

not_seized

Orders

  • The African Commission decides not to be seized of this Communication as it does not fulfil the criteria for Seizure provided under Rule 93(2) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (2010).