[1988] ACHPR 17

[1988] ACHPR 17

The African Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider communications against States that are not parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As the USA is not a party to the Charter, the communication is inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1988] ACHPR 17
Parties
Applicant: Prince J. N. Makoge; Respondent: USA
Court
African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Communication 5 of 1988
Procedural Posture
Communication / Decision
Outcome
communication declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Communications, Jurisdiction of Commission, State Party Requirements
Source Language
en
Public International Law Admissibility of Communications Jurisdiction of Commission State Party Requirements

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

Prince J. N. Makoge

Applicant

USA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Communication / Decision

  1. 1 Whether the African Commission has jurisdiction to consider a communication against a State 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 lacks jurisdiction to consider communications against States that are not parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As the USA is not a party to the Charter, the communication is inadmissible under Article 101 of the Rules of Procedure.

Court Disposition

communication declared inadmissible

Orders

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