V Africa
| Published date | 01 December 1993 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419301100410 |
| Date | 01 December 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
NQHR
4/1993
of
monitoring the compliance
of
states with international norms (paras. 26 and 29).
The
Courtalso was
of
the opinionthat the terms ' reasonableness' , ' convenience' and ' authenticity'
could be employed
by
the Commission in the sense that the law is contrary to these
international norms (paras. 33, 34 and 35).
(ii) With respect
to
Articles 46 and 47
of
the Convention, on whether it is legally
acceptable that the Commission, after having declared a communication inadmissible, proceeds
subsequently and in
the
same resolution, to give an opinion concerning the substance
of
the complaint, the
Court
states that the admissibility
of
the complaint is a
prior
step,
indispensable to go
into
the merits of the case. Thus, when acomplaint is declared
inadmissible, the
Commission
has no
power
to examine the substance
of
the case (paras.
39-43). However, this does not mean that the Commission may not recommend the State
the taking
of
measures with regard to the substance of the problem in the exercise
of
its
power
under
Article 41(f)
of
the American Convention. This, according to the Court -
and rightly so -
should
be done
in
aseparate procedure.
(iii) As to Articles 50 and 51
of
the Convention, on whether it is possible for the
Commission to
subsume
the two reports set forth in these two articles
in
only one report,
where the Commission orders its publication before the term
of
Article 51 has expired,
the
Court
is
of
the
opinion
that this is
not
possible, recalling that this practice
of
the
Commission has
brought
some proceduralproblems in the
past
(cases VelasquezRodrigues,
Godinez
Cruz
and
Fairen
Garbi and Solis Corrales against Honduras) (paras. 55 and 56).
V
AFRICA
A.
The
African
Commission
on
Human
and
Peoples'
Rights
>10
The
SixthAnnual Activity
Report
of
the African Commissionon
Human
and Peoples' Rights
for 1992-1993,
presented
to the XXIX Ordinary Session
of
the Assembly
of
African Heads
of State and Government held in Cairo,
Egypt,
from
28-30 June 1993 and released
for
publication afterwards, according to constantpractice, does contain, for the first time, some
concrete information
on
what happened to communications addressed to the African
Commission. Annex
XI
on 'confidential information on communication' whichapparently
had
been
submitted to the
OAU
Assembly for the first time contains
some
rudimentary
information on action taken on 46 out
of
about 100 communications received by the African
Commission so far.
However,
the
report
only gives the reference numbers
of
the
communications and
the
names
of
the parties.
The
communications
are
regroupedaccording
to the sort
of
action taken by the Commission. Accordingly three communications were
declared inadmissible, among them two communications
of
Amnesty International versus
Tunisia
of
1992.
Five
communications brought by individuals as well as NGOs against
Uganda, Tanzania,
Malawi
and Nigeria were declared admissible. One
of
those cases dates
from 1988; another one
from1993.
In 15 cases, dating from 1991-1993, the Commission
had written to the states concerned asking either to submit their observations
or
to give
additional information within two months. However, the report also informs that the
Commission decided to write at the same time to four
of
the states complained against,
namely Chad, Mauritania, Nigeria and
Togo,
requesting them to allow
for
avisit
of
two
members
of
the Commission
'to
discuss with competent authorities allegations contained
>10
Wolfgang Benedek
494
To continue reading
Request your trial