[1994] ACHPR 3
The African Commission found that the complainant had referred his complaint to the courts in Benin, where it was still pending. In accordance with Article 56(5) of the African Charter and Rule 103(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission held that the communication was inadmissible for want of exhaustion of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1994] ACHPR 3
- Parties
- Applicant: Hadj Boubacare Diawara; Respondent: Government of Benin
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Communication 18 of 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Human Rights Communication / Admissibility Decision
- Outcome
- communication declared inadmissible
- Legal Topics
- Arbitrary Detention, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Admissibility of Communication
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Hadj Boubacare Diawara
Applicant
Government of Benin
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Communication / Admissibility Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the communication is admissible before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- 2 Whether the complainant has exhausted local remedies as required under Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
Ratio Decidendi
The African Commission found that the complainant had referred his complaint to the courts in Benin, where it was still pending. In accordance with Article 56(5) of the African Charter and Rule 103(1)(f) of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission held that the communication was inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies. The Commission emphasized that it cannot entertain communications where domestic remedies have not been pursued and concluded, as this would contravene the principle of subsidiarity and respect for national judicial processes.
Court Disposition
communication declared inadmissible
Orders
- The communication is declared inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
10 paragraphs
## **AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS**
# **HADJ BOUBACARE DIAWARA**
### **v. BENIN**
# **DECISION**
Citation: Hadj Boubacare Diawara v Benin, Comm. 18/88, 8th ACHPR AAR Annex VI (1994-1995)
Publications: IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoples' Rights Extracted from the Commission's Activity Reports 1994-2001, at 16 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 381 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 23 (ACHPR 1995)
## COMPLAINT
[1] The communication No. 18/88, was submitted by Mr. El Hadj Boubacare Diawara. He had been detained without charge or trial from 18 February 1982 for a period of more than 7 years. Furthermore, he reports the arbitrary detention of 7 others, one of whom died in prison 11 months after imprisonment. All detainees, he claimed, were tortured while imprisoned.
## FINDING
[2] Notice of hearing were sent to the parties, but only the representative of the Government of Benin appeared. Since the complainant has referred his complaint to the courts in Benin, where it is now pending, the Commission declared the communication inadmissible for want of exhaustion of local remedies, under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rules 103(l)(f) of the Rules of Procedure.