Numéro de dossier:
Judgement Number:
Fêtes:
Mécanisme:
Violations trouvées:
The communication argued that the prolonged difficulties in enforcing domestic court decisions and the resulting consequences had violated several rights protected under the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, notably:
The Droit à l'éducation guaranteed under Article 11,
as well as the obligation of States to protect the child and ensure her best interests in accordance with Articles 1, 4, 5, and 18 of the Charter.
Protecting child rights: A look at a historic amicable settlement between IHRDA and Burundi before the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
- Type of decision: Amicable Settlement
- Date of adoption of the settlement: October 2024
In October 2024, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) endorsed a historic amicable settlement between the Republic of Burundi and A Minor (name withheld), represented by the Institut pour les droits de l'homme et le développement en Afrique (IHRDA). This settlement marks an important milestone in the protection of children’s rights in Africa, particularly regarding the right to education, the enforcement of judicial decisions, and the protection of the best interests of the child.
The case originated from a prolonged family and judicial dispute that deeply affected the life of the minor child. While she was still a minor, several domestic court decisions were issued concerning her custody, place of residence, and the obligations of her parents towards her. In particular, taking into account the Intérêt supérieur de l’enfant, in 2012 the High Court of Bujumbura Municipality ordered that the child be raised in a family house located on the Carama property in Burundi’s economic capital. Despite this judicial decision, difficulties related to its implementation, as well as the social and educational consequences that followed, seriously affected the child and her family.
After a period of exile, the child returned to Burundi on 25 October 2021. Upon her return, she and her mother discovered that her mother’s husband, who had also contributed to their flight through acts of intimidation, had sold the property and the apartments built on it, in violation of the Court’s decision. Furthermore, the child was unable to reintegrate into the Burundian education system due to language difficulties and a lack of financial means to attend a school providing instruction in English. This situation eventually led the child to resume her studies in Kenya.
Faced with this situation, IHRDA brought the matter before the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child on behalf of the minor. The communication argued that the prolonged difficulties in enforcing domestic court decisions and the resulting consequences had violated several rights protected under the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, notably the Droit à l'éducation guaranteed under Article 11, as well as the obligation of States to protect the child and ensure her best interests in accordance with Articles 1, 4, 5, and 18 of the Charter.
The ACERWC encouraged the parties to explore an amicable settlement pursuant to Section XIII of the Guidelines for the Consideration of Communications. This approach aimed not only at resolving the dispute consensually, but also at ensuring prompt and effective remedies for the benefit of the child. The negotiations ultimately resulted in an amicable settlement agreement under the auspices of the Committee. Under this agreement, the Burundian Government committed itself to several concrete measures aimed at remedying the harm suffered by the child and ensuring the protection of her rights. First, Burundi undertook to provide the child with decent housing through the definitive enforcement of the judgment of the High Court of Bujumbura Municipality, notably by making available to the child’s mother the Carama property on which a brick house stands. Second, the State committed itself to taking all necessary measures to facilitate the integration of the child into the Burundian education system, in accordance with Article 11 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, subject to her return to Burundi. Third, the Government of Burundi agreed to provide additional reparation in the form of a durable house constructed on a four-acre plot located in Ntahangwa Commune in Bujumbura. This measure was intended to remedy the moral harm caused by the delay in implementing judicial decisions and to provide the family with resources enabling them to continue the child’s education. Finally, the settlement provided for a monitoring Mécanisme requiring Burundi to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the status of implementation of the agreement. The ACERWC expressly decided to remain seized of the matter until the full implementation of the State’s commitments.
In an implementation report on this amicable settlement submitted by the Government of Burundi to the CAEDBE, Burundi provided a largely positive assessment of the measures undertaken in compliance with the settlement. IHRDA was also able to independently confirm that implementation had been done. This submission marks an important stage in the monitoring of the agreement and reflects the recognition by the Burundian authorities of the binding nature of the commitments undertaken within the framework of the settlement. More importantly, it demonstrates that amicable settlement constitutes a faster response to the needs of victims, encourages stronger ownership by States in the realisation of human rights, and contributes to obtaining more concrete and personalised reparations. It also illustrates the essential role of African mechanisms in the protection of human rights.
A faster response to the needs of victims
This case has proven that one of the principal advantages of amicable settlement lies in the relative speed of the process. Normally, Litige procedures before international and regional human rights mechanisms can take several years. Between the filing of a communication, the exchange of submissions, hearings, deliberations, and the delivery of a final decision, victims often wait a long time before obtaining effective remedies. However, in cases involving children, women, or persons in vulnerable situations, time plays a crucial role. Delayed remedies may lose much of their practical value. In this case, the amicable settlement made it possible to avoid lengthy Litige before the ACERWC. Through this approach, concrete measures could be negotiated and implemented more rapidly in order to respond to the child’s immediate needs, particularly with regard to housing.
This practical effectiveness constitutes one of the greatest strengths of amicable settlement: it prioritises real impact on the lives of victims rather than a purely symbolic legal victory.
Better ownership by States
The amicable settlement in this case demonstrates that this mode of resolution fosters stronger State ownership in the implementation of citizens’ rights. Indeed, one of the major challenges facing regional and international human rights systems remains the execution of decisions. In many cases, States delay implementing judicial decisions rendered against them. Some decisions remain partially enforced for years, while others are never fully implemented. Amicable settlement often presents an important advantage in this regard: the remedial measures arise from an agreement voluntarily accepted by the State. Such consent generally promotes stronger Politique and administrative ownership of the commitments undertaken.
The Burundian authorities not only accepted the measures provided for in the agreement, but also submitted an official implementation report to the ACERWC in January 2026. This step demonstrates a certain willingness to respect the commitments undertaken within the framework of the settlement. The consensual nature of the procedure therefore contributes to reducing tensions between the Fêtes and fostering more constructive cooperation during the implementation phase.
More concrete and personalised reparations
International and regional judicial decisions often provide reparations in general terms: compensation, legislative reform, investigations, or guarantees of non-repetition. Amicable settlement, by contrast, allows greater flexibility in defining remedies. The parties can jointly design solutions tailored to the particular circumstances of the case and the specific needs of victims. In certain situations, this approach makes it possible to achieve more concrete and humane outcomes. In the present case, the reparations provided went far beyond simple financial compensation. They directly aimed at restoring the living conditions and dignity of the child concerned: access to housing, Soutien for education, and family stability. This victim-centred approach constitutes one of the principal reasons why amicable settlements may sometimes produce more tangible impact than certain traditional judicial decisions.
The essential role of African Human Rights Mechanisms
This case has proven that the effectiveness of amicable settlement nevertheless depends heavily on the role played by African human rights mechanisms. The latter do not merely register agreements reached between Fêtes. They also exercise a supervisory function to ensure that settlements comply with human rights standards and are effectively implemented. For instance, the ACERWC decided to remain seized of the matter until the full implementation of the settlement. This supervision strengthens both the credibility and the effectiveness of amicable agreements.
Thus, amicable settlement within the African system should not be viewed as an informal or politically weak solution. On the contrary, it is a legal Mécanisme framed and supervised by African human rights institutions.
Conclusion
The experience in the Cas against Burundi demonstrates that amicable settlement can constitute a particularly effective tool for the protection of fundamental rights. By emphasising dialogue, speed, flexibility, and concrete reparations, this procedure often makes it possible to achieve results more rapidly and effectively than certain judicial decisions whose implementation may remain uncertain.
In an African context where challenges related to the execution of decisions remain significant, amicable settlement therefore appears to be a promising instrument of restorative justice and effective human rights protection. More than a simple alternative to Litige , it represents a complementary approach capable of bringing justice closer to the real needs of victims.
À propos des auteurs :
Dr. Gilbert Hagabimana is a Legal Officer at IHRDA and a human rights lawyer with extensive experience in Litige and legal research before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. He holds advanced qualifications in international and human rights law and has taught law at several universities in Burundi.
Jean-Richard Nononsi is a Legal Intern at IHRDA and a BCL/JD candidate at McGill University’s Faculty of Law. His interests include human rights, constitutional and administrative law, critical race theory, and emerging issues in artificial intelligence, informed by academic research and lived experience across Africa and North America.
