[2013] ACHPR 121

[2013] ACHPR 121

The Commission found that, although the applicant had constructively exhausted local remedies due to the unavailability, ineffectiveness, and inadequacy of judicial remedies in Sudan—caused by emergency decrees, statutory limitations, and immunity provisions—the communication was ultimately inadmissible because it was not submitted within a reasonable period as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter. The Commission determined that the fifteen-month delay between the final domestic decision (Constitutional Court ruling communicated in January 2009) and the submission of the communication (May 2010) was not justified by compelling reasons, and thus exceeded what could be...

Citation
[2013] ACHPR 121
Parties
Applicant: Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim; Respondent: Republic of Sudan
Court
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
25 February 2013
Case Number
Communication 386/10
Procedural Posture
Communication / Admissibility Ruling
Outcome
communication declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility Requirements, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, State Immunity, Statute of Limitations, Torture and Ill Treatment, Access to Justice
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Admissibility Requirements Exhaustion of Local Remedies State Immunity Statute of Limitations Torture and Ill Treatment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Farouk Mohamed Ibrahim

Applicant

Republic of Sudan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Communication / Admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the communication is inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5) of the African Charter.
  2. 2 Whether the communication was submitted within a reasonable period as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter.
  3. 3 Whether the remedies available in Sudan were effective, adequate, and accessible to the victim.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission found that, although the applicant had constructively exhausted local remedies due to the unavailability, ineffectiveness, and inadequacy of judicial remedies in Sudan—caused by emergency decrees, statutory limitations, and immunity provisions—the communication was ultimately inadmissible because it was not submitted within a reasonable period as required by Article 56(6) of the African Charter. The Commission determined that the fifteen-month delay between the final domestic decision (Constitutional Court ruling communicated in January 2009) and the submission of the communication (May 2010) was not justified by compelling reasons, and thus exceeded what could be...

Court Disposition

communication declared inadmissible

Orders

  • The communication is declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter.
  • The parties are to be notified and the decision attached to the Commission's Activity Report as per Rule 107(3) of the Rules of Procedure.