The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACmHPR) has ruled against the Mauritanian government, le trouvant en violation des droits à la non-discrimination et à la propriété, as well as in violation of its obligations towards the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights for its un-proportional punishment through closure and seizure of property of the opposition political party and arrest of leaders of Union de forces démocratiques/ Ere nouvelle (UFD/EN) in November and December 2000.

La décision, publiée dans le 28ème rapport annuel d’activités de la CAmHPR après son approbation par l’Assemblée des chefs d’État et de gouvernement de l’UA en juillet 2010, constitue une étape importante dans le parcours de 10 ans de l’UFD/EN et de ses clients, INTERIGHTS, IHRDA et l’Association mauritanienne des droits de l’Homme (AMDH). Cette décision, 373/06 INTERIGHTS, IHRDA and AMDH v Mauritania, is the second decision issued by the ACmHPR on the matter. It follows the decision on the original communication 242/01 INTERIGHTS, IHRDA and AMDH v Mauritania. Communication 373/06 was filed on 1st September 2006 and follows up on the allegations made in the earlier 242/01 INTERIGHTS, IHRDA and AMDH v Mauritania of violation of articles 1, 2, 7, 9(2), 10(1), 13 and 14 of the African Charter. This follows the arbitrary dissolution of the political party UFD/EN and seizure of its movable and immovable assets as well as arrest, harassment and intimidation of its leaders between October and December 2000.

En accord avec les victimes, la CADHP a recommandé à la Mauritanie de verser une indemnisation adéquate aux victimes pour la perte subie et de veiller à ce que ses lois sur la liberté d'association et notamment en ce qui concerne les partis politiques, soient conformes à ses obligations au titre de la loi. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Moreover, in continuing a recent trend, Mauritania is further required to report back to the ACmHPR in 6 months as to its progress in implementing the recommendations.

Une jurisprudence historique

This decision 373/06, is also landmark case law as it is the first time the ACmHPR has reviewed a decision to exhaustively address the allegations and prayers of the Complainants. The ACmHPR reaffirmed its obligation and commitment to review such an incomplete decision, termed ‘infra petita’ in the interests of justice. In doing so, it set out the conditions under which a decision can be termed ‘infra petita’ and therefore have right to be reviewed. Of the seven (7) alleged violations of the African Charter in the original communication 242/01, the ACmHPR failed to pronounced itself on three of these, while also failing to recommend specific remedies for the violations that it did pronounce on. In the words of the ACmHPR, “it is perfectly legal for a tribunal that had forgotten to decide on a claim (‘infra petita‘) to supplement its decision without affecting the res judicata caractère des autres réclamations décidées. Cette procédure… peut être entreprise suo moto or on the request of one of the parties” [para. 38].

Ainsi, la CAmADHP a réaffirmé le droit à un recours en cas de violation et offre de la clarté aux victimes qui demandent justice devant la CAmADHP. Non seulement le résultat clarifiera si la Charte africaine a été violée, mais si tel est le cas, un recours pour la violation subie sera ordonné. Cela ouvre également la voie à d'autres éventuelles demandes de révision de infra petita decisions.

The original communication 242/01 INTERIGHTS, IHRDA et AMDH c. Mauritanie was filed 25th April 2001.