[2002] ACHPR 35
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights determined that, since the complainant had formally requested withdrawal of the communication before a decision on the merits, the appropriate course of action was to close the file. The Commission took note of the withdrawal and did not proceed to consider the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] ACHPR 35
- Parties
- Applicant: Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Sedar Tumba Mboyo); Respondent: Democratic Republic of Congo
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Communication 238 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Communication / Withdrawal Before Determination on Merits
- Outcome
- withdrawn
- Legal Topics
- Arbitrary Detention, Torture and Ill Treatment, Right to Fair Trial, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Association
- 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
Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Sedar Tumba Mboyo)
Applicant
Democratic Republic of Congo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Communication / Withdrawal Before Determination on Merits
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the detention and treatment of Mr. Sedar Tumba Mboyo by state agents violated his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
- 2 Whether the communication was admissible in light of exhaustion of local remedies.
- 3 Whether the withdrawal of the complaint by the applicant warranted closure of the file.
Ratio Decidendi
The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights determined that, since the complainant had formally requested withdrawal of the communication before a decision on the merits, the appropriate course of action was to close the file. The Commission took note of the withdrawal and did not proceed to consider the admissibility or merits of the allegations. The withdrawal rendered further proceedings moot, and the Commission exercised its discretion to terminate the matter in accordance with its established procedures and practice.
Court Disposition
withdrawn
Orders
- The Commission takes note of the withdrawal of the communication by the complainant and decides to close the file.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
## **AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS Thirty-First Ordinary Session 2-16 May 2002**
# **INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEVELOPMENT (ON BEHALF OF SEDAR TUMBA MBOYO)**
## **v.**
#### **DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO**
#### **DECISION**
- BEFORE: CHAIRPERSON: Kamel Rezag-Bara VICE CHAIRPERSON: Jainaba Johm COMMISSIONERS: A. Badawi El Sheikh, Andrew R. Chigovera, Vera M. Chirwa, Emmanuel V. O. Dankwa, Yasser Sid Ahmed El-Hassan, Angela Melo, N. Barney Pityana, Hatem Ben Salem, Salimata Sawadogo - Citation: Inst. for Human Rights and Dev. v. Congo, Comm. 238/2001, 15th ACHPR AAR Annex V (2001-2002) - Publications: Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Vol. 2, at 347 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2009); (2002) AHRLR 19 (ACHPR 2002)
## RAPPORTEUR
29th session: Commissioner Isaac Nguema
30th session: Commissioner Sawadogo
31st session: Commissioner Sawadogo
#### SUMMARY OF FACTS
- 1. The Institute submitted the complaint on behalf of Mr Sedar Tumba Mboyo for Human Rights and Development, (the Institute for Human Rights and Development is a Human Rights NGO located in Banjul, the Gambia and since October 1999 has been granted observer status with the African Commission). - 2. The communication was sent by post and was received at the Secretariat of the Commission on 21st November 2000.
- 3. The applicant who has full powers to act on behalf of Mr. Tumba Sedar Mboyo, maintains that AFDL (the Alliance of Democratic Forces for Liberation) soldiers forced entry into Mr Sedar's Residence, and after having brutalised and intimidated his neighbourhood forcefully took him without warrant or explanation. - 4. He was bound hand and foot, kept in conditions where he could not satisfy his natural needs and subjected to "heavy handed" interrogation for three (3) days, after which he was accused of inciting a popular uprising. - 5. He was then transferred and detained together with ten or so other anti-Kabila protesters in the former Mobutu military camp. Mr Mboyo affirms that he was beaten and his rights infringed upon for two days by the three soldiers guarding him. - 6. Mr Mboyo was detained incommunicado for a total period of twenty three (23) days. - 7. The Complainant alleges that Mr Mboyo's human rights activities within the NGO may have led the government into making these unfounded accusations.
### COMPLAINT
'
8. The Complainant is alleging that Articles 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18 and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights have been violated.
### PROCEDURE
- 9. At the 29th ordinary session held in Tripoli, the rapporteur introduced the complaint. The Commission examined the communication and decided to be seized of the matter and recommended that the parties be informed accordingly. - 10. On 19th June 2001, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties on the above decision and requested Respondent State to forward its written submissions within two (2) months from the date of notification of this decision - 11. On 20th June the Secretariat of the African Commission requested the Institute for Human Rights and Development to furnish clarification on the measures taken by the author to exhaust local remedies or any documents on his possession proving the all allegations. - 12. During the 30th Ordinary Session, the rapporteur reviewed the facts of the communication and recommended that the case be deferred to the next Session. Parties were requested to forward relevant information to the Commission on exhaustion of local remedies and on the alleged violence against the Complainant before the next Session to enable it decide on admissibility. - 13. On 19th November 2001, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties on the decision of the Commission and requested the Complainant and the
Respondent State to forward their written submissions within two (2) months from the date of notification of this decision.
- 14. On 19th February 2002, a reminder was sent to the Respondent State and the Complainant to forward their submissions within the prescribed time to enable the Secretariat to proceed with the communication. - 15. By letter dated 6th March 2002, Counsel for the Complainant informed the Commission that Mr Mboyo had requested that this communication be withdrawn.
#### FOR THE ABOVEMENTIONED REASON
The Commission takes note of the withdrawal of the communication by the Complainant and decides to close the file.
Done at the 31st Ordinary Session, held in Pretoria, South Africa from 2nd to 16th May 2002.