[1995] ACHPR 7
The African Commission found that the communication was inadmissible because it did not meet the requirements of article 56 of the African Charter. Specifically, the complainants failed to provide their address, making it impossible for the Commission to send notifications or further correspond with them. Despite...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1995] ACHPR 7
- Parties
- Applicant: Ibrahima Dioumessi; Applicant: Sekou Kande; Applicant: Ousmane Kaba; Respondent: Government of Guinea
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Communication 70 of 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Communication / Admissibility
- Outcome
- communication declared inadmissible
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility Requirements, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Right to Fair Trial, Right to Security of Person
- 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
Ibrahima Dioumessi
Applicant
Sekou Kande
Applicant
Ousmane Kaba
Applicant
Government of Guinea
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Communication / Admissibility
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the communication is admissible under article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- 2 Whether the lack of the complainants' address renders the communication inadmissible.
Ratio Decidendi
The African Commission found that the communication was inadmissible because it did not meet the requirements of article 56 of the African Charter. Specifically, the complainants failed to provide their address, making it impossible for the Commission to send notifications or further correspond with them. Despite repeated efforts by the Secretariat to obtain this information, the deficiency was not remedied. The absence of this essential information precluded the Commission from proceeding to consider the merits of the communication, regardless of the substantive allegations of rights violations. The Commission thus declared the communication inadmissible on procedural grounds.
Court Disposition
communication declared inadmissible
Orders
- The communication is declared inadmissible.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
**7 October 1995 Communication No. 70/92**
# **AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Eighteenth Ordinary Session 2-11 October 1995**
# **IBRAHIMA DIOUMESSI, SEKOU KANDE, OUSMANE KABA v. GUINEA**
### **DECISION**
BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Prof. Isaac Nguema
VICE CHAIRMAN: Prof. Emmanuel V. O. Dankwa COMMISSIONERS: Mr. Robert H. Kisanga, Dr. Mohamed H. Ben Salem Dr. Vera V. Duarte Martins, Prof. U. Oji Umozurike, Mr. Atsu Koffi Amega, Mr. Kamel Rezzag-Bara, Mrs. Julienne Ondziel-Gnelenga
Citation: Dioumessi v. Guinea, Comm. 70/92, 9th ACHPR AAR Annex VIII (1995- 1996) 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 138 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 448 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 130 (ACHPR 1995)
#### THE FACTS
- 1. The communication was submitted by Ibrahima Dioumessi, Sekou Kande, Ousmane Kaba, and received by the Commission on 15 November 1991. It contains no mailing address for the complainants. - 2. The communication alleges that following the coup d'etat of 4 July 1984 in Guinea, the complainants were arrested, tortured and incarcerated for three years without charge or trial. - 3. The complainants allege violation of the right to security of persons and the right to fair trial. The former detainees request compensation for the moral and material prejudice they have suffered.
### PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION
4. The Commission was seized of the communication at its 12th Session in November 1992.
- 5. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Guinea was notified on 13 November 1992. The Secretariat also requested the complainants' address. - 6. In 1993 and 1994, numerous reminders were sent by the Secretariat to the Government of Guinea, but no response was received. - 7. On 21 October 1994, the Guinean Government sent a note verbale to the Commission requesting that the Commission delay consideration of the communication until the 17th Session, in order to allow the government to submit its memorandum in response. - 8. At the 17th Session in March 1995, the memorandum of the Government of Guinea had not been received, but it was decided to wait for it, and in the meanwhile to ask the complainants if they had exhausted all domestic remedies. - 9. All attempts to get the addresses of the complaints were of no avail. - 10. At the 18th Session, the memorandum of the Government of Guinea still had not been received.
## THE LAW
## ADMISSIBILITY
11. The problem posed here is one of admissibility. To be admissible, a communication must fulfill all the conditions of article 56 of the Charter, in particular, the identity of the complainants so that they may be sent notifications.
12. In the present case, the Secretariat has not been able to remedy this lack of the complainants' address.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION declares the communication inadmissible.
Taken at the 18th Ordinary Session, Praia, Cape Verde, 7 October 1995.