Case LawAfrican Union / Regional Courts
App. No. 002/2011 – Soufiane Ababou v. Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Algeria
16 January 1970
Headnotes
Type: Decision | Keywords: Jurisdiction | Outcome: Ruled Inadmissible | State: Algeria
Judgment
AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE
UNIAO AFRICANA
AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS
COUR AFRICAINE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME ET DES PEUPLES
IN THE MATTER OF
SOUFIANE ABABOU
v.
THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA
APPLICATION NO. 002 I 2011
DECISION
The Court composed of: Gerard NIYUNGEKO, President; Sophia A.B.
AKUFFO, Vice-President; Jean MUTSINZI, Bernard M. NGOEPE,
Modibo T. GUINDO, Joseph N. MULENGA, Augustine S.L.
RHAMADHANI, Duncan TAMBALA, Elsie N. THOMPSON and Sylvain
ORE- Judges; and Robert ENO- Acting Registrar.
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOUFIANE ABABOU
v.
THE PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA
After deliberations,
makes the following decision:
1. By application dated 20 February 2011, Mr. Soufiane Ababou, living
and residing in Cite des Jardins Lamtar - CP 22360 Wi/aya of Cidi
Bel Abbes, Algeria ( hereinafter referred to as the Applicant), acting
through his representative, Youssef Ababou, lodged a complaint to
the Court, against the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria
(hereinafter referred to as Algeria), regarding his forceful conscription
into the Algerian army.
2. In conformity with Article 22 of the Protocol to the African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court
on Human and Peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as the
Protocol), and Rule 8 (2) of the Rules of Court (hereinafter referred to
2
as the Rules), Mr. Fatsah Ouguergouz, member of this Court, of
Algerian nationality, recused himself.
3. By letter dated 18 March, 2011, the Registry acknowledged receipt of
the application and requested the Applicant to submit a signed copy
of the application, to specify the alleged violation, to show proof of
the exhaustion of local remedies or of their inordinate delay, and to
specify the measures or the remedies requested from the Court.
4. By letter dated 25 March, 2011, in accordance with Article 34 (1) (2)
and (4) of the Rules, the representative of the Applicant submitted a
signed copy of the application to the Registry, and provided
information on the exhaustion of local remedies.
5. The Court notes that in order for it to receive an application coming
directly from an individual against a State Party, there must be
compliance with, amongst others, Articles 5 (3) and 34 (6) of the
Protocol.
6. Article 5 (3) of the Protocol provides that "The Court may entitle
relevant non Governmental organizations (NGOs) with observer
status before the Commission, and individuals to institute cases
directly before it, in accordance with Article 34 (6) of this Protocol".
7. On its part, 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".
3
8. It emerges from a combined reading of the above-mentioned
provisions that direct access to the Court by an individual is subject to
the making of a special declaration by the Respondent State,
authorizing such an access.
9. By letter dated 10 June, 2011, the Registrar of the Court wrote to the
Legal Counsel of the African Union Commission, to find out whether
the Respondent State had made the declaration required under
Article 34 (6) of the Protocol.
10. By a memorandum dated 13 June, 2011, the Legal Counsel of the
African Union Commission informed the Court that the Respondent
State had not made such a declaration.
11. On this basis, the Court concludes that Algeria has not accepted the
Court's jurisdiction to receive applications directly from individuals
and non-governmental organizations filed against her. Consequently,
it is clear that the Court manifestly does not have jurisdiction to
receive the application.
12. Article 6 (3) of the Protocol provides that the Court may consider
cases or transfer them to the Commission. The Court notes that in
view of the allegations contained in the application, it would be
appropriate to transfer the case to the African Commission on Human
and Peoples' Rights.
4
13. For these reasons:
THE COURT,
Unanimously:
1. Declares that pursuant to Article 34 (6) of the Protocol, it does
not have jurisdiction to receive the application submitted by Mr.
Soufiane Ababou against the People's Democratic Republic of
Algeria.
2. Decides to transfer the case to the African Commission on
Human and People's Rights in accordance with Article 6 (3) of
the Protocol.
Done in Arusha, this Sixteenth Day of June, Two Thousand and
Eleven, in French and in English, the French text being
authoritative.
Signed:
Robert E~c~ng Registrar
-::>
r
5
Similar Cases
18/16 Cosma Faustin v Tanzania
80% similar
006/2012 - African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v the Republic of Kenya - Judgment
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights73% similar
007/2017 - Mulindahabi Fidèle v. Rwanda
69% similar