Case LawAfrican Union / Regional Courts
007 12 Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi v. Tunisia
16 January 1970
Headnotes
Type: Decision | Keywords: AfCHPR Procedure, Actio popularis, Administration of Justice, Admissibility, Provisional/interim measures | Outcome: Ruled Inadmissible | State: Tunisia
Judgment
007/12 Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi v. Tunisia
AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS
IN THE MATTER OF
BAGHDADI ALI MAHMOUDI
V.
THE REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA.
APPLICATION 007/2012
DECISION
The Court composed of: Gerard NIYUNGEKO, President; Sophia A.B. AKUFFO, Vice-President; Jean
MUTSINZI, Bernard M. NGOEPE, Modibo T. GUINDO, Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ, Augustino S.L.
RAMADHANI, Duncan TAMBALA, Elsie N. THOMPSON and Sylvain ORE- Judges; and Robert ENO -
Registrar,
In the matter of
BAGHDADI ALI MAHMOUDI
V.
THE REPUBLIC OF TUNISIA
After deliberations,
makes the following decision:
1. By a letter dated 31 May 2012, Mr. Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant"),
through his lawyer, informed the Registry of the Court of his intention to submit an Application before the
Court with a request for interim measures, against the Republic of Tunisia (hereinafter referred to as "the
Respondent").
2. On 1 June 2012, the Registry of the Court received the Applicant's Application, together with the request
for interim measures.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 34(1) of the Rules of Court, the Registrar, by a letter dated 7 June
2012, acknowledged receipt of the Application and registered the same. In the same letter, the Registrar
requested the Applicant to satisfy the Court that the Application meets the requirements under Rule 34 of
the Rules of Court, in particular, the exhaustion of local remedies.
4. By a letter dated 12 June 2012, the Applicant responded to the Registrar's letter of 7 June 2012, and
submitted copies of judgments from the Court of Appeal of Tunis as proof of exhaustion of local remedies.
5. By a letter of 14 June 2012, the Applicant submitted additional information relating to the exhaustion of
local remedies.
6. The Court first observes that in terms of Article 5(3) of the Protocol, it "may entitle relevant
Non-Governmental organizations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission, and individuals to
1
institute cases directly before it, in accordance with article 34 (6) of this Protocol".
7. The Court further notes that Article 34(6) of the Protocol provides that "At the time of the ratification of
this Protocol or any time thereafter, the State shall make a declaration accepting the competence of the
Court to receive cases under Article 5(3) of this Protocol. The Court shall not receive any petition under
Article 5(3) involving a State Party which has not made such a declaration".
8. By a letter dated 18 June 2012, the Registrar inquired from the Legal Counsel of the African Union
Commission if the Republic of Tunisia has made the Declaration required under Article 34(6) of the
Protocol.
9. By an email dated 19 June 2012, the Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission informed the
Registry of the Court that the Republic of Tunisia had not made such a declaration.
10. The Court observes that the Republic of Tunisia has not made the declaration under Article 34(6).
11. In view of Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, it is evident that the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction
to receive the Application submitted by Mr. Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi, against the Republic of Tunisia.
12. For the Court to make an order for interim measures, it has to satisfy itself that it has prima facie
jurisdiction, which as indicated in paragraph 11 above, it does not have.
13. For these reasons,
THE COURT,
Unanimously:
i. Decides that pursuant to Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol, it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to receive
the Application submitted by Mr. Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi, against the Republic of Tunisia;
ii. Decides that in view of paragraph (i) above, it cannot grant the Applicant's request for provisional
measures.
Done at Arusha, this twenty-sixth day of June, Two Thousand and Twelve, in English and French,
the French text being authoritative.
Signed:
Gérard NIYUNGEKO, President
Robert ENO, Registrar
In conformity with Article 28 (7) of the Protocol and Rule 60 (5) of the Rules of Court, Judge Fatsah
OUGUERGOUZ appended a separate opinion to the present decision.
2
Similar Cases
S v Haitumba (39 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 138 (4 June 2012)
[2012] NAHC 138High Court of Namibia59% similar
Alexander v Mbumba and Others (1) (APPEAL 179 of 2007) [2011] NAHC 281 (22 September 2011)
[2011] NAHC 281High Court of Namibia58% similar
Ayoub v Minister of Justice and Others (1) (APPEAL 82 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 145 (11 June 2012)
[2012] NAHC 145High Court of Namibia56% similar
S v Ntita and Others (81 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 254 (4 October 2012)
[2012] NAHC 254High Court of Namibia56% similar
S v Ayoub (12 of 2012) [2012] NAHC 286 (6 June 2012)
[2012] NAHC 286High Court of Namibia56% similar