Res judicata and the Admissibility of Applications before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: a Fresh Look at Dexter Eddie Johnson v. Republic of Ghana

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 470-496
Author(s):  
Mwiza Jo Nkhata

Abstract In Dexter Eddie Johnson v. Republic of Ghana, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Court), for only the second time in its history, applied Article 56(7) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter) to declare a case inadmissible. The Court reasoned that the case was inadmissible since the applicant had first approached, and obtained a determination, from the United Nations Human Rights Committee before lodging his case with the Court. This article analyses the Court’s decision and attempts to unpack the Court’s interpretation and application of the doctrine of res judicata, which is the essence of the requirement in Article 56(7) of the Charter.

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 235-253
Author(s):  
Ayyoub Jamali ◽  
Martin Faix

As part of an ongoing discussion on the proliferation of the human rights judicial mechanism, this article critically analyses and unpacks the only two examples where the African Court had to decide on the application of the doctrine of res judicata under Article 56(7) of the African Charter. The Court declared both applications inadmissible on the grounds of their previous settlements by the ECOWAS Court of Justice and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The article demonstrates that while the Court’s decision in the Gombert case appears to be correct in principle, its finding in the Dexter case is highly questionable and unconvincing.


2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 245-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert

The definition and scope of indigenous peoples' human rights are usually contentious in the context of Africa.2While in recent years indigenous peoples' human rights have expanded immensely internationally, in Africa indigenous peoples' rights are still perceived to be in their infancy.3At the United Nations, the group of African States delayed the process that finally led to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 (UNDRIP).4At a national level, most of the States in Africa are still reluctant to recognize the specific rights of indigenous peoples.5Until recently, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission), the leading human rights institution for the continent,6had kept a low profile on the issue and had ‘not always interpreted indigenous peoples’ rights favourably'.7From this perspective Commission regarding the communication submitted by the indigenous Endorois community against Kenya casts new light on the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa.8The decision, which has already been hailed as a ‘landmark,’9touches on several crucial issues regarding the development of indigenous peoples' human rights in Africa. This groundbreaking decision did not materialize unexpectedly but is part of a wider evolution of the Commission regarding indigenous peoples' human rights in Africa. It echoes the work of the Commission's own Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities (Working Group) which was established in 2001 with the mandate to focus specifically on the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa.10The mandate of the Working Group is to examine the concept of indigenous communities in Africa, as well as to analyse their rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter).11In 2003 the Commission adopted the report of the Working Group which proposes several avenues for the recognition and promotion of indigenous rights in Africa.12The adoption of an Advisory Opinion by the Commission to support the adoption of UNDRIP marked another step toward the affirmation of indigenous peoples' rights in Africa.13The Advisory Opinion not only participated in unlocking the reluctance of the group of African States to adopt the UNDRIP, but also reflected developments taking place at the international level on the rights of indigenous peoples as well as their connection to the continent. Remarkably, in recent years, the Commission has started to refer to indigenous peoples' rights in its examination of States' periodic reports.14All these factors and the recent decision of the Commission in the Endorois case indicate the emergence of a consistent jurisprudence on indigenous peoples' rights in Africa.


1996 ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Editorial board Of the Journal

GENERAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Adopted and proclaimed in resolution 217 A (III) of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 10.12.1948


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-318
Author(s):  
Roman Girma Teshome

The effectiveness of human rights adjudicative procedures partly, if not most importantly, hinges upon the adequacy of the remedies they grant and the implementation of those remedies. This assertion also holds water with regard to the international and regional monitoring bodies established to receive individual complaints related to economic, social and cultural rights (hereinafter ‘ESC rights’ or ‘socio-economic rights’). Remedies can serve two major functions: they are meant, first, to rectify the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the particular victim, and second, to resolve systematic problems existing in the state machinery in order to ensure the non-repetition of the act. Hence, the role of remedies is not confined to correcting the past but also shaping the future by providing reforming measures a state has to undertake. The adequacy of remedies awarded by international and regional human rights bodies is also assessed based on these two benchmarks. The present article examines these issues in relation to individual complaint procedures that deal with the violation of ESC rights, with particular reference to the case laws of the three jurisdictions selected for this work, i.e. the United Nations, Inter-American and African Human Rights Systems.


Asian Survey ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 217-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Peek

Author(s):  
Gillian MacNaughton ◽  
Mariah McGill

For over two decades, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has taken a leading role in promoting human rights globally by building the capacity of people to claim their rights and governments to fulfill their obligations. This chapter examines the extent to which the right to health has evolved in the work of the OHCHR since 1994, drawing on archival records of OHCHR publications and initiatives, as well as interviews with OHCHR staff and external experts on the right to health. Analyzing this history, the chapter then points to factors that have facilitated or inhibited the mainstreaming of the right to health within the OHCHR, including (1) an increasing acceptance of economic and social rights as real human rights, (2) right-to-health champions among the leadership, (3) limited capacity and resources, and (4) challenges in moving beyond conceptualization to implementation of the right to health.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document