[1988] ACHPR 13

[1988] ACHPR 13

The African Commission declared the communication inadmissible because the respondent state, USA, is not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Commission's jurisdiction is limited to states that have ratified the Charter, and communications against non-party states cannot be entertained...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1988] ACHPR 13
Parties
Applicant: Iheanyichukwu A. Ihebereme; Respondent: USA
Court
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Communication 2 of 1988
Procedural Posture
Communication / Final Decision
Outcome
communication declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Communications, Jurisdiction of Commission, State Party Requirement
Source Language
en
Public International Law Admissibility of Communications Jurisdiction of Commission State Party Requirement

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iheanyichukwu A. Ihebereme

Applicant

USA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Communication / Final Decision

  1. 1 Whether the African Commission has jurisdiction over communications against states not party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
  2. 2 Whether the communication is admissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

The African Commission declared the communication inadmissible because the respondent state, USA, is not a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Commission's jurisdiction is limited to states that have ratified the Charter, and communications against non-party states cannot be entertained under its Rules of Procedure.

Court Disposition

communication declared inadmissible

Orders

  • The communication is declared inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.