■ African Courts and Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Both the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR) have a mandate of promoting and monitoring the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter), which was adopted by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) on 27 June 1981 and entered into force on 21 October 1986. The Commission headquarters are located in Banjul, The Gambia and the Court headquarters are located in Arusha, Tanzania.
In 2002, the OAU was officially replaced by the African Union (AU) upon the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The new continental organisation intended to create the Court of Justice of the African Union which, to this day, never came into existence. It was rather merged with the ACtHPR in 2008 by the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) to create a new court: the ACJHR. It should be noted, however, that the new court has not yet come into force. The 2008 Protocol on the ACJHR shall only enter into force 30 days after its ratification by fifteen Member States (art. 9). As of May 2024, only eight countries (Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Congo, The Gambia, Libya, Liberia and Mali) have ratified it. Moreover, in June 2014, a Protocol on Amendments to the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (Malabo Protocol) was also adopted by the AU but is still awaiting ratification in order to enter into force. In the meantime, the ACtHPR continues to operate.
During this transitional period, both the Commission and the ACtHPR are competent to examine situations of human rights violations and complaints or communications filed by Member States or individuals. On some occasions, the Commission also considered situation of violation of international humanitarian law as authorised by articles 60 and 61 of the Banjul Charter (see Decision no. 227/99 on Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda , 29 May 2003, paras. 70, 78, 79-87 and General comment no 3 On The African Charter On Human And Peoples’ Rights: The Right To Life (Article 4) , November 2015, paras. 33, 35 and Decision no. 396/11 on Mohammed Abderrahim El Sharkawi (represented by EIPR and OSJI) v. the Republic of Egypt , 20 October 2021).
Other mechanisms exist in the framework of African regional organizations, such as the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Court of Justice (EAC) These mechanisms all apply and refer to the Banjul Charter as well as other conventions adopted by the AU in the field of human rights.
In addition to States, individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can submit communications to the African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is competent with regard to all States Parties to the Banjul Charter (currently 54 States).
Nevertheless, such communications are subject to various admissibility conditions.
Individuals and NGOs will be able to file complaints before the African Court of Justice and Human Rights but only against States that expressly accepted its jurisdiction.
I. The African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights
The African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights was established in 1987 according to Article 30 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (also known as the Banjul Charter). It comprises eleven independent experts. These experts are elected by the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government and serve six-year terms that can be renewed once. (Article 36 of the Banjul Charter). It should be noted that senior civil servants and diplomatic representatives are not eligible for election to this body. The Commission meets every six months, usually in March or April and in October or November. One of these meetings is usually in Banjul; the other may be in any African State. At each session, the Commission presents an activity report to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government.
The Commission’s mandate is set forth in article 45 of the Banjul Charter. It includes:
•Interpreting the Charter’s provisions;
•Promoting human and people’s rights (art. 45(1) specifies some of the ways the Commission can implement this goal: collecting and preparing legal documents relating to human rights; centralizing documentation, research, studies; disseminating information and raising awareness; cooperating with other African and competent international institutions; formulating and laying down principles and rules aimed at solving legal human rights problems; etc.); and
•Ensuring the protection of human and peoples’ rights. Articles 46 to 59 of the Charter specify the procedures and powers given to the Commission. The Commission is competent to receive and examine State or individual communications relative to human rights violations and proceed to investigations (arts. 46, 51). If no amicable solution is found, the Commission may communicate its report and recommendations to the concerned State and to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government (arts. 52, 58-59).
1. State Communications
If a State Party to the Banjul Charter believes that another State Party has violated the provision of the Charter, the first State may draw the attention of the second State to the matter by written communication (art. 47). If, within three months, no mutually satisfactory solution has been found, either party to the dispute can submit the matter to the Commission. The State alleging the human rights violation also has the option of referring the case directly to the Commission. The Commission can only deal with a matter submitted to it after making sure that all local remedies, if they exist, have been exhausted, unless it is obvious that the procedure of achieving these remedies would be unduly prolonged (art. 50). Once the Commission is considering a matter, its aim is not to pronounce a judgment but to search for an amicable solution, in light of the written and oral explanations submitted by the concerned States. If this process fails, the Commission sends a report on the findings to the States party to the dispute and to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government. The report can include non-binding recommendations (arts. 52 and 53). The entire procedure remains confidential. However, if the Assembly of Heads of State and Government so decide, the report may be published.
2. Other Communications
The complaints from other sources (such as individuals or NGOs), called “other communications” can be transmitted to the Commission (art. 55).
The Commission does not automatically consider all cases. Before each session, the list of communications is transmitted to the Commission’s members. The Commission then considers a complaint on the request of a simple majority of its members (art. 55).
The communications are then subject to seven conditions of admissibility (art. 56). They must not be anonymous (i.e., they must indicate the authors, even if they later request anonymity), written in disparaging or insulting language, or based exclusively on news from the mass media, and they must not deal with cases that have already been settled by the States involved in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, the AU Charter, or the Banjul Charter. In addition, the communication must, be sent to the Commission after local remedies are exhausted (unless such procedure is unduly prolonged) and be submitted within a reasonable period.
After determining the admissibility of a case, the Commission begins an examination on the merits and notifies the accused State. If one or more of the communications to the Commission appear to “reveal the existence of a series of serious or massive violations of human and peoples’ rights,” the Commission informs the Assembly of Heads of State and Government (art. 58). In case of emergency, the Commission may submit the information directly to the chair of the Assembly, who may request an in-depth study from the Commission. This will result in a report, including recommendations. All measures taken within the procedure remain confidential, unless the Assembly decides otherwise.
The Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights also authorizes the Commission to set up subsidiary bodies (Chapter VI, Rules 25-26). As of May 2024, the Commission has five Special Rapporteurs that address specific human rights issues:
•Freedom of Expression and Access to Information;
•Human Rights Defenders;
•Prisons and Conditions of Detention;
•Refugees, Asylum Seekers, Migrants, and Internally Displaced Persons; and
•Rights of Women (this Rapporteur bears specific responsibilities with respect to the Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa, better known as the Maputo Protocol).
There are also seven Working Groups, three Committees and one Advisory Committee that monitor and investigate various issues under the jurisdiction of the Commission and submit a progress report at each Ordinary Session of the Commission:
•Working Group on Specific Issues Related to the Work of the African Commission;
•Working Group on Indigenous Populations/Communities in Africa;
•Working Group on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights;
•Working Group on the Death Penalty, Extra-Judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Killings And Enforced Disappearances in Africa;
•Working Group on Rights of Older Persons and People with Disabilities;
•Working Group on Extractive Industries, Environment, and Human Rights Violations;
•Working Group on Communications;
•Committee on the Protection of the Rights of People Living with HIV (PLHIV) and Those at Risk of, Vulnerable to, and Affected by HIV;
•Committee on Resolutions;
•Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa; and
•Advisory Committee on Budgetary and Staff Matters.
II. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998) / The African Court of Justice and Human Rights (2008) / The African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights (2014)
The African Court on Human and People’s Rights (ACtHPR) was created by a Protocol to the Banjul Charter (1998 Protocol), adopted on 9 June 1998 by the AOU and entered into force on 25 January 2004. On 22 January 2006, the 7th Ordinary Session of the Executive Council of the AU elected the first eleven judges of the ACtHPR. Judges are elected for six-year terms and can be re-elected once (art. 15(1) of the 1998 Protocol). The president and vice president are elected for two-year terms and can be re-elected once (art. 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure). The ACtHPR had its first meeting on 2–5 July 2006 and on 15 December 2009 the Court delivered its first judgment. Up until May 2024, it has held 72 Ordinary sessions and 10 Extraordinary sessions.
For the 31 States that have ratified the 1998 Protocol, the Court has jurisdiction to hear cases referred by the Commission, the Member State concerned, other Member States, and African Intergovernmental Organizations. However, unless the State in question also deposited a Special Declaration pursuant to Article 5(3) and 34(6) of the 1998 Protocol, individuals and civil society members (including NGOs) may not refer a case for consideration. According to the Protocol, the Court does not have temporal jurisdiction to hear alleged violation occurring before the State concerned became party to the Protocol and filed the Declaration, except in cases where the alleged violations are continuous in character (where the acts that form the basis of the allegation result in continuing violation) (See Judgment (Jurisdiction) Request no 059/2016, Twifo Hemang Community et al. v. Ghana (para. 53) and Judgment of 5 September 2023 in the case of B aedan Dogbo Paul & Baedan M’Bouke Faustin v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire , application 019/2020, para. 29.
As of May 2024, eight states (Burkina Faso, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Malawi, Mali, Niger and Tunisia) have deposited a Declaration. However, in the last decade, four states have deposited an instrument withdrawing their Declaration, namely Rwanda (2016), Tanzania (2019), Benin (2020) and the Ivory Coast (2020). Nevertheless, the withdrawal of a declaration is effective 12 months after the issuance of the notice of withdrawal and has no retroactive effect. This rule has been confirmed by the Court in its ruling on jurisdiction in the matter of Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda (See the ruling on jurisdiction of 13 June 2016 in the matter of Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda , application 003/2014, paras. 66-68). It is also a principle that has not changed over time and is still binding as the recent case of Deogratius Nicholaus Jeshi v. United Republic of Tanzania demonstrates (See the judgment of 13 February 2024 in the case of Deogratius Nicholaus Jeshi v. United Republic of Tanzania , application 017/2016, para. 30). Rwanda being the first State to have deposited an instrument of withdrawal, the Court had to establish the legal effects of this decision. The withdrawal of the four states mentioned above is now completely effective, meaning individuals and NGOs can’t institute a case directly to the Court. However, for the eight remaining States, individuals and NGOs are required to exhaust domestic remedies before applying to the Court.
The exhaustion of local remedies is a condition which is both mentioned in the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights at art. 56(5) and the Rules of Court of the ACtHPR at art. 50(2)(e). This is a well-established rule in international law and applicants must respect it before filing a demand to the Court, under penalty of rejection as demonstrated by the cases of Aminata Soumare and Mama Seidou Samiratou (see the Rulings of 5 September 2023 in the case of Aminata Soumare v. Republic of Mali , application 038/2019, para. 46 and in the case of Mama Seidou Samiratou v. Republic of Benin , application 054/2019, para. 49).
However, for this condition to apply, local remedies must be available, effective, sufficient and not be unduly prolonged for them to be exhausted. This position has been established and confirmed in numerous decisions (see the Judgment of 13 June 2023 in the case of Legal and Human Rights Centre & Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition v. United Republic of Tanzania , application 039/2020, para. 46).
The ACtHPR has jurisdiction over cases and disputes concerning human rights violations based either on the Banjul Charter, the 1998 Protocol as well as any human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned such as violations of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, adopted in Addis Ababa in 1990, and of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, signed in Maputo in 2003. (see Judgment of 11 May 2018 in the case of Association Pour le Progrès et la Défense des Droits des Femmes Maliennes (APDF) and the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v. Republic of Mali , application 046/2016, para. 27 and see Judgment of 7 November 2023 in the case of Youssouf Traore and 9 others v. Republic of Mali , application 022/2018, paras. 27-28). The ACtHPR also established that it can interpret and apply human rights instrument not subject to ratification by States (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that are part of customary international law (see the Judgement of 26 September 2019 in the case of Shukrani Masegenya Mango & others v United Republic of Tanzania , application 008/2015, paras. 29-30 and see the Judgement of 13 June 2023 in the case of Conaïde Togla Latondji Akouedenoudje v. Republic of Beni n, application 024/2020, para. 78).
In 2002, the AU officially replaced the OAU following its September 1999 decision to create a new continental organisation. The Constitutive Act of the African Union entered into force on 26 May 2001 after obtaining the ratification of 55 States. Its article 18(1) intends to establish a Court of Justice of the African Union (CJAU) which is meant to be the principal judicial organ of the Union. The creation of this court is organised by the Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union that entered into force on 11 February 2009 after getting the 15 ratifications that it needed (as of May 2024, there are 19 ratifications). However, despite the afore mentioned ratifications, the CJAU has yet to be established.
On 1 July 2008, at the 11th AU Summit of Heads of State and Government in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, the successor to the OAU, the AU, drafted a Protocol and Statute creating the new African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) that will merge the existing ACtHPR with the Court of Justice of the AU (CJAU). The merger protocol, entitled the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (the Single Protocol), was adopted in 2008 but will enter into force only 30 days after its ratification by fifteen Member States (art. 9). As of May 2024, only eight countries (Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Congo, The Gambia, Libya, Liberia and Mali) have ratified it. Moreover, in June 2014, another Protocol entitled the Protocol on Amendments on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (Malabo Protocol) was adopted by the AU but has yet to be ratified by States. In the meantime, the ACtHPR continues to operate.
Upon its coming into force, the Single Protocol, will supersede both the 1998 Protocol and the Protocol of the Court of Justice of the AU as amended by the Malabo Protocol. The Statute of the merged Court is set forth in the annexes to the Single Protocol and the Malabo Protocol. The Court will henceforth be known as the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’s Rights (ACJHPR) and will become the principal judicial organ of the AU. The ACJHPR will be based in Arusha, Tanzania, and will be composed of three sections—one for general legal matters, one for rulings on the human rights treaties and one for criminal matters (added by the Malabo Protocol). The ACJHPR shall consist of sixteen independent judges, elected by the Executive Council on the basis of equitable geographic distribution and gender representation. Judges shall be elected by secret ballot by a two-thirds majority of Member States with voting rights and appointed by the Assembly. The ACJHPR shall decide each year on the periods of its ordinary sessions and shall hold extraordinary sessions when convened by the President or at the request of the majority of the judges.
In order to better understand the methods of referral to the Court during the transition period, the articles of the 1998 Protocol, the 2008 Single Protocol and the 2014 Malabo Protocol are presented together in the following section.
1. The Court’s Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the Banjul Charter, the 1998 Protocol, and on any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned (1998, art. 3(1)). The following elements have been added to the Court’s jurisdiction by the 2008 Protocol: the interpretation of the Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child; the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa; any question of international law; all acts, decisions, regulations, and directives of the organs of the AU; the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an obligation owed to a State Party or to the AU; as well as the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation (2008, art. 28). The Malabo Protocol creates a criminal law section within the ACJHPR that can try individuals and corporations. If ratified by 15 States, the ACJHPR would become the first court that can establish both state and individual responsibility. The Malabo Protocol also adds an appellate body for the criminal section, a fourth organ to the Court, a defence Office, and a third section, the criminal law section that would be composed of three chambers (pre-trial, trial and appellate). The criminal law section would give competence to the ACJHPR to try corporations and individuals of State parties for a total of 14 transnational crimes and crimes under international criminal law. These are the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of aggression (crimes already dealt by the ICC), piracy, crime of unconstitutional change of government, corruption, money laundering, trafficking in drugs, mercenarism, trafficking in hazardous wastes, terrorism, trafficking in persons and illicit exploitation of natural resources. Victims could claim reparation and the ACJHPR could order reparation against the convicted. However, in contrast with the provisions established by the International Criminal Court, the Malabo Protocol affords immunity to heads of State and senior State officials for actions perpetrated in their official duties during their tenure in office.
The Court can also give advisory opinions on any legal question at the request of the Assembly, the Parliament, the Executive Council, the Peace and Security Council, the Economic, Social, and Cultural Council, the Financial Institutions, or any other organ of the AU as may be authorized by the Assembly. Nonetheless, a request for an advisory opinion must not be related to a pending application before the African Commission or the African Committee of Experts (1998, art. 4; 2008, art. 53).
The functions of the Court are to (a) be the main judicial organ of the AU; (b) complement and reinforce the mission of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child; (c) protects human and peoples’ rights, freedoms and duties contained in the declarations, conventions and other instruments adopted by the OAU and, other international organizations; (d) interpret and apply the Banjul Charter, the 1998 and the Single Protocols, the Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in African, on any question of international law and any other relevant Human Rights instruments ratified by the States concerned; (e) try corporations and individuals aged 18 years-old and older for the crimes provided in its Statute; and (f) hear, encourage amicable settlement between parties, decide or provide advisory opinions on all cases and disputes relating to the interpretation and application of the above-mentioned legal instruments.
2. Seizure of the Court
The following institutions are entitled to submit cases to the Court: the African Commission, the State Party that has lodged a complaint to the Commission, the State Party against which the complaint has been lodged at the Commission, the State Party whose citizen is a victim of human rights violation and African intergovernmental organizations (1998, art. 5(1)). This list was enlarged in 2008 to add the Assembly of the AU, the Pan-African Parliament, other organs of the AU authorized by the Assembly, a Staff member of the AU on appeal within the limits and terms of the Staff Rules and Regulations of the Union, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child; and human rights institutions (2008, arts. 29 and 30). The Malabo Protocol also adds the Peace and Security Council of the AU and the Office of the Prosecutor of the Court (2014, art.15) to the institutions entitled to submit cases to the Court.
Individuals and NGOs that enjoy observer status at the Commission may also petition the Court if the concerned Member State has formally agreed to the optional articles providing for the Court’s jurisdiction in such circumstances (1998, arts. 5(3), 34(6); 2008, arts. 8(3), 30(f); 2014, art. 16).
The Court may try to reach an amicable settlement in a case pending before it (1998, art. 9). If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a human right, it shall make appropriate orders to remedy the violation, including the payment of fair compensation or reparation (1998, art. 27; 2008, art. 45; 2014, art. 20), or take provisional measures in situations of extreme gravity or emergency (1998, art. 27(2)). States are bound to comply with the Court’s judgments (1998, art. 30; 2008, art. 46; 2014, art. 21).
3. Consequences of the Malabo Protocol
The entry into force of the Malabo Protocol would have many consequences. Among others, head of State and senior State officials would be granted immunity in virtue of art. 46A bis of the Amended Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human and People’s Rights, annexed to the Malabo Protocol. This clause is in apparent contradiction with the fundamental values of the AU. Art. 3(h) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union mentions that the principal objective of the organization is to promote and protect human rights for all African citizens. By granting immunity to head of State and senior State officials, no prosecution could therefore be brought against them if they were to violate human rights. This immunity is also contrary to the position taken by other international jurisdictions, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Rome Statute establishing the ICC, expressly states that official capacity does not preclude criminal accountability for international crimes under its jurisdiction (art. 27). By signing the Rome Statute, State parties including numerous African states, have waived immunities for their heads of states or other state officials. The expansion of the jurisdiction of the ACJHPR provided by the Malabo Protocol, which would include a criminal section, is accompanied by a paucity of information regarding the competing obligations States could have towards both the ICC and the ACJHPR in the event that the Protocol enters into force. Consequently, States may find themselves in a position where they are required to navigate competing obligations.
III. Other African Courts
Outside the system put in place by the AU, African regional organizations have also developed different systems for protection of human rights.
1. ECOWAS Community Court of Justice
This Court is the main legal organ of the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) and its headquarters are located in Abuja, Nigeria. It was established in 1991 by the ECOWAS (composed of the States of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo), but only began to work in 2001 when the first judges were appointed. The Court is competent to examine violations of human rights under the Treaties, Conventions, and Protocols of the Community as well as under the Banjul Charter. Since the adoption of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court in 2005, individuals can file complaints before the Court for violations of human rights perpetrated by State agents (art. 4(c)) of the Supplementary Protocol). It is possible to file a complaint before having exhausted domestic remedies, contrary to most similar international procedures. Individuals can seize the Court provided that the same matter has not been brought before another International Court (art. 4(d)). Judgments of the Court that have financial implications for nationals of Member States are binding (art. 6(1)). For example, in 2008, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice condemned the State of Niger to pay reparation to a victim of slavery. Even though in that particular case the plaintiff was not a victim of a State agent, the Court engaged the State responsibility of Niger for failing to respect its international obligations in matters of protection against slavery (Judgment, Hadijatou Mani Koraou v. Republic of Niger , ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/08, 27 October 2008). In more recent times, the Court ordered the State of Sierra Leone to revoke its discriminatory ban for pregnant girls to sit on exams and to attend mainstream school (Judgment, Women Against Violence and Exploitation in Society (WAVES) v. The Republic of Sierra Leone , ECW/CCJ/JUD/37/19, 12 December 2019). Also, the Court awarded a total of 1 million USD in damage to 10 members of the United Democratic Party in The Gambia for the hardship and violations of their human rights due to an arbitrary detention and acts of torture they suffered after being lawfully arrested during protests in April 2016 by State agents (see Judgment, Ousainou Darboe & 31 Ors v. The Republic of the Gambia , ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/20, 20 January 2020).
2. The East African Court of Justice
This Court was created as a judicial institution of the East African Community (composed of the States of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda) in 1999 and was officially launched in November 2001. As of May 2024, it temporarily sits in Arusha, Tanzania. It does not yet have a clear or specific mandate concerning human rights, but it can give opinions on the application or violations of the Banjul Charter. Indeed, article 27(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community postponed its human rights jurisdiction to a “suitable subsequent date” to be determined by the Council of Ministers of the Community. However, articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community open the door for interpretation of human rights cases as they undertake Partner States to recognize, promote and protect human and people’s rights in accordance with the provisions of the Banjul Charter as well as to maintain universally accepted standards of human rights.
**Jurisprudence
Decisions from the ACtHPR are available on:
https://www.african-court.org/cpmt/decisions
https://www.african-court.org/wpafc/?lang=eng
➔ Human rights </content/article/3/human-rights/>__ ▸ Individual recourse </content/article/3/individual-recourse/>__
➔ List of States Party to International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Conventions (no. 12)
African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights
31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District Western Region
PO Box 673
Banjul, The Gambia
Tel.: (220) 441 05 05, 441 05 06
Cell:06230 436106
Fax: (220) 441 05 040404
Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org
African Court for Human and Peoples’ Rights
Mwalimu Julius Nyerere Conservation Centre
Dodoma Road
P.O. Box 6274
Arusha, Tanzania
Tel.: (255) 27 297 04 30, 27 297 04 31, 27 297 04 32
Email: registrar@african-court.org, registry@african-court.org
ECOWAS Court of Justice
Plot 1164, Joseph Gomwalk Street, Gudu District
Abuja, Nigeria
Email about a case: registry@courtecowas.org
Email on general information: info@courtecowas.org
Email for Hon. President’s Office: president@courtecowas.org
East African Court of Justice
EAC Headquarters, 1st Floor,
Africa Mashariki Road, EAC Close,
P.O.Box 1096
Arusha, Tanzania
Tel.: (255) 27 250 60 93, (234) (9) 5240781, (234) (9) 6708210
Fax: (255) 27 250 94 93
Email: eacj@eachq.org
Southern African Development Community (SADC)
SADC House, Plot No. 54385
Central Business District Private Bag 0095
Gaborone, Botswana
Tel.: (267) 395 1863
Fax: (267) 397 2848, 318 1070
Email: registry@sadc.int
@ Websites:
http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/au
.. note:
For Additional Information:
Amnesty International,*Malabo Protocol: Legal and institutional implications of the merged and expanded African Court , 2016. Available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/AFR0130632016ENGLISH.pdf
Derso, Solomon and Boshoff, Elsabe, “Extending human rights accountability for corporate actors in the LIDHO v Cote d’Ivoire case of the African Court”, Blog of the European Journal of International Law , February 21, 2024 Available at https://www.ejiltalk.org/extending-human-rights-accountability-for-corporate-actors-in-the-lidho-v-cote-divoire-case-of-the-african-court/
Duffy, Helen, “Hadijatou Mani Koroua v Niger: Slavery Unveiled by the ECOWAS Court.” Human Rights Law Review , Volume 9, Issue 1, (2009): 151-170.
International Federation for Human Rights, 10 Keys to Understand and Use the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. A user’s Guide for victims of Human Rights Violations in African and Human Rights Defenders , FIDH: Paris, 2004.
Murray, Rachel, “The Human Rights Jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights.” in Jalloh C. Charles, Clarke M. Kamari and Nmehielle O. Vincent, The African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights in Context: Development and Challenges , Cambridge University Press, (2019): 965-88.
Ouguergouz, Fatsah, “The Establishment of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights: A Judicial Premiere for the African Union.” African Yearbook of International Law , Volume 11, Issue 1, (2003): 79–141.
Perez-Leon-Acavedo, Juan-Pablo, “Victims and Reparations in International Criminal Justice: African Initiatives.” Nordic Journal of International Law , Volume 88, Issue 4, (2019): 525-57.
Shuman, Tipiwa, “Rising from its ruins? The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal.” Law, Democracy & Development , Volume 26, Issue 1, (2022): 287-310.
Van Der Mei, Anne Pieter, “The New African Court on Human and Peoples Rights: Towards an Effective Human Rights Protection Mechanism for Africa?” Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 18, Issue 1, (2005): 113–29.
Viljoen, Frans, “The Jurisprudence of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 2018”, p.694-706, in The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2019 , Guiliana Ziccardi Capaldo (ed.). Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197513552.003.0030