[2019] AfCHPR 7

[2019] AfCHPR 7

The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the application as the alleged violations concerned rights protected under the Charter and other ratified instruments, and the Respondent State had made the necessary declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. However, the Court determined that the application was inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the Charter and Rule 40(7) of the Rules because the same matter had already been considered and settled by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), which issued views on the merits of the Applicant's claims. The Court held that the identity of the parties and issues in both proceedings was established, and the HRC's decision, though...

Citation
[2019] AfCHPR 7
Parties
Applicant: Dexter Eddie Johnson; Respondent: Republic of Ghana
Court
African Court on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Case Number
Application No. 016/2017
Procedural Posture
Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible; each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
Aboud J, Anukam J, Ben Achour J, Bensaoula J, Chizumila J, Eno R, Kioko VP, Matusse J, Mengue J, Orè P, Tchikaya J
Legal Topics
Right to Life, Mandatory Death Penalty, Exhaustion of Local Remedies, Admissibility of Applications, Non Bis in Idem, International Human Rights
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Right to Life Mandatory Death Penalty Exhaustion of Local Remedies Admissibility of Applications Non Bis in Idem International Human Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dexter Eddie Johnson

Applicant

Republic of Ghana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the African Court has jurisdiction to hear the application alleging violations of the right to life, prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and right to a fair trial under the Charter and other instruments.
  2. 2 Whether the application is admissible in light of Article 56(7) of the Charter, given prior consideration of the same matter by the UN Human Rights Committee.
  3. 3 Whether the principle of non bis in idem (no double jeopardy) precludes the Court from considering the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the application as the alleged violations concerned rights protected under the Charter and other ratified instruments, and the Respondent State had made the necessary declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. However, the Court determined that the application was inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the Charter and Rule 40(7) of the Rules because the same matter had already been considered and settled by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), which issued views on the merits of the Applicant's claims. The Court held that the identity of the parties and issues in both proceedings was established, and the HRC's decision, though...

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The Court has jurisdiction to hear the application.
  • The application is inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the Charter.