[1992] ACHPR 3
The Commission found that while the right to self-determination is protected under Article 20(1) of the African Charter, there was no evidence presented of human rights violations or denial of participation in government sufficient to justify secession or independence for Katanga. The Commission emphasized that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1992] ACHPR 3
- Parties
- Applicant: Katangese Peoples' Congress; Respondent: Zaire
- Court
- African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Communication 72 of 1992
- Procedural Posture
- Public International Law Application / Decision
- Outcome
- dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Self Determination, Territorial Integrity, Sovereignty of States, Participation in Government
- 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
Katangese Peoples' Congress
Applicant
Zaire
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Public International Law Application / Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Katangese Peoples' Congress is entitled to recognition as a liberation movement under the African Charter.
- 2 Whether Katanga is entitled to independence or a form of self-determination under Article 20(1) of the African Charter.
- 3 Whether there is evidence of denial of the right to participate in government as guaranteed by Article 13(1) of the African Charter.
Ratio Decidendi
The Commission found that while the right to self-determination is protected under Article 20(1) of the African Charter, there was no evidence presented of human rights violations or denial of participation in government sufficient to justify secession or independence for Katanga. The Commission emphasized that self-determination may be exercised in forms compatible with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire. In the absence of concrete evidence of breaches of the Charter, the request for recognition of Katanga's independence and the Katangese Peoples' Congress as a liberation movement was denied. The Commission reaffirmed the obligation to respect the territorial integrity of...
Court Disposition
dismissed
Orders
- The Commission declares that there is no evidence of violations of rights under the African Charter.
- The request for independence for Katanga is denied as having no merit under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
### **AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS**
### **KATANGESE PEOPLES' CONGRESS**
# **v.**
## **ZAIRE**
### **DECISION**
Citation: Katangese Peoples' Cong. v. Zaire, Comm. 75/92, 8th ACHPR AAR Annex VI (1994-1995)
Alt. Style of Cause: Congres du Peuple Kataganais v. Zaire
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 359 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, at 389 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds., 2001); (2000) AHRLR 72 (ACHPR 1995)
### THE FACTS
1. The communication was submitted in 1992 by Mr. Gerard Moke, President of the Katangese Peoples' Congress requesting the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights: to recognise the Katangese Peoples' Congress as a liberation movement entitled to support in the achievement of independence for Katanga; to recognise the independence of Katanga; to help secure the evacuation of Zaire from Katanga.
#### THE LAW
- 2. The claim is brought under Article 20(1) of the African Charter on Human Rights'. There are no allegations of specific breaches of other human rights apart from the claim of the denial of self-determination. - 3. All peoples have a right to self-determination. There may however be controversy as to the definition of peoples and the content of the right. The issue in the case is not selfdetermination for all Zaireoise as a people but specifically for the Katangese. Whether The Katangese consist of one or more ethnic groups is, for this purpose immaterial and no evidence has been adduced to that effect. - 4. The Commission believes that self-determination may be exercised in any of the following ways - independence, self-government, local government, federalism, confederalism, unitarism or any other form of relations that accords with the wishes of the people but fully cognisant of other recognised principles such as sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- 5. The Commission is obligated to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire, a member of the OAU and a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. - 6. In the absence of concrete evidence of violations of human rights to the point that the territorial integrity of Zaire should be called to question and in the absence of evidence that the people of Katanga are denied the right to participate in government as guaranteed by Article 13(1) of the African Charter, the Commission holds the view that Katanga is obliged to exercise a variant of self-determination that is compatible with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire.
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE COMMISSION declares that the case holds no evidence of violations of any rights under the African Charter. The request for independence for Katanga therefore has no merit under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.