Background 

In the late 20th century, Mauritania’s population was largely composed of Moors (or Beidanes), who predominantly lived in the northern and central parts of the country. In 1984, a coup d’état brought Colonel Maaouya Ould Sid Ahmed Taya to power. Under his regime, black Mauritanians faced systematic marginalisation, discrimination and serious human rights violations. In its Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania communication, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) combined seven different communications and considered them jointly. These communications involved alleged human rights violations committed by the Mauritanian government between 1986 and 1992. 

The first alleged violations occurred as a repressive reaction to the distribution of a document entitled “Le Manifeste des negro-mauritaniens opprimés” (Manifesto of the Oppressed Black Mauritanians). The document highlighted evidence of the racial discrimination faced by black Mauritanians and called for dialogue with the government. 

The following year, in 1987, the regime arbitrarily detained numerous individuals on politically motivated charges, accusing them of conspiracy or belonging to a criminal association. Those detained were subjected to inhuman conditions, including starvation, forced labour, violence and inadequate medical care. Some detainees died in prison. The conditions of detention reportedly differed along racial lines, with black Mauritanians experiencing harsher conditions than Beidanes.

In 1989 and 1990, the Mauritanian army conducted repressive operations in villages in the Southern parts of the country. The communications alleged confiscation of livestock and forced evictions of black Mauritanians, forcing them to flee to Senegal. The properties they left behind were subsequently taken and destroyed by the Haratines, an ethnic group composed of black freed slaves but closely associated with the Moors. The Haratines formed militias that allegedly carried out extrajudicial executions of black Mauritanians, in collaboration with the Mauritanian army and security forces. A curfew was also imposed in villages in the South, and protesters were killed, tortured and arrested. 

In September 1990, thousands of arrests took place on the basis that there had been an attempt to unseat the government, although no evidence was provided to substantiate these allegations. Detainess were subjected to  torture, and some of the prisoners were reportedly executed without trial. In 1991, President Maaouya Ould Taya announced the release of all the prisoners. However, the deaths of 142 people were confirmed, while another 197 detainees were not released and were presumed dead. On 14 June 1993, the Mauritanian government granted amnesty to those accused of the killings.

Furthermore, though slavery was officially abolished in Mauritania in 1981, there were no effective measures aimed at eradicating the practice. Consequently, in 1991, an estimated 100,000 black slaves were allegedly serving in Beidane households. In addition, freed slaves remained second-class citizens or maintained traditional and social ties with their former masters, constituting a more subtle form of exploitation. Black Mauritanians were also allegedly prohibited from speaking their own languages.

Seven Communications were brought before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights based on these facts by different civil society actors. At the Commission’s 19^th session in March 1996, the Mauritanian delegate admitted that human rights violations had been committed. The Commission sent a mission in Mauritania from 20^th to 27^th June 1996 to promote human rights and gather information on the issue of slavery.  

In 1999, the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) represented victims in Communications 98/93, 164/97 and 196/97 before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. IHRDA’s representation focused primarily on victims of alleged extrajudicial killings, including individuals who were reportedly detained and killed in military camps following a wave of arrests of black Mauritanian military personnel and civilians in the early 1990s

Furthermore, this was the first case to which IHRDA contributed, providing an opportunity for its founders to offer active legal counsel and draw on their knowledge of the Commission’s operations and procedures. They requested that the Commission hold a hearing on the cases during its 27th Ordinary Session, allowing the victims to testify before the Commission for the first time. The Mauritanian government also sent a delegation, which allowed a meeting between the victims and the respondents.

The Human Rights Issues at Stake

1. Political Rights 

The Communications argued that the trials of individuals who had distributed the “Manifesto” violated the right to freedom of expression and to disseminate one’s opinions. They further alleged that the prosecution of political opponents on unsubstantiated grounds violated their rights to freedom of association and assembly. The Commission found in favour of the Applicants on these allegations and held that the Respondent State had violated the rights invoked

2. Judicial Rights

The complainants argued that the trials system of Mauritania violated their right to have their case heard, which involved the rights to an appeal, to be presumed innocent, to defence and to be tried in a reasonable amount of time by an impartial court or tribunal. A violation of the State’s duty to guarantee the independence of its courts was also alleged. Lastly, it was argued that Mauritania conducted several arbitrary arrests and detentions. The Commission found that the rights evoked had indeed been violated by the Respondent. 

3. Detention Conditions 

The Communications argued that the acts of physical violence, rape and starvation perpetrated by the Respondent State against the Applicants constituted violations of their rights to dignity and freedom from torture and other degrading treatment. The Communications further alleged that the denial of food and medical attention to prisoners, as well as their solitary confinement, constituted violations of their rights to life, to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health, and to the protection of the family, respectively. The Commission found in favour of the Applicants on all these allegations and held that the Respondent State had violated the rights invoked.

4. Attacks on Villages 

The complainants argued that the villagers’ rights to dignity and life were also violated during the attacks they suffered. Moreover, the alleged evictions of black Mauritanians from their houses and deprivation of their citizenship constituted a violation of the right of every individual to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of a State. Furthermore, it was argued that these evictions violated the right to property. Finally, these attacks were also considered as a violation of the right to national and international peace and security. The Commission found that the attacks on villages conducted or permitted by the Respondent constituted violations of the rights invoked.

5. Slavery and Equality of Peoples

The Communications argued that the maintenance of the practice of slavery in Mauritania constituted a violation of human rights. Moreover, Communication 54/91 alleged that the Mauritanian government denied black groups the right to speak their own languages, which constituted a violation of the right of every individual to freely take part in the cultural life of his community. Lastly, the complainants argued that the discrimination against black Mauritanians constituted violations of the equality of peoples. The Commission considered with caution that the available information did not allow to establish with certainty violations of the equality of peoples. The Commission also did not conclude that there was a practice of slavery, but it deemed that there was a violation of Article 5 due to analogous practices. 

An African Commission’s Historic Decision

On 11 May 2000 in Algiers, the African Commission issued a single landmark decision covering all seven communications of this case. It observed that the Mauritanian government, from 1989 to 1992 committed grave violations of human rights as proclaimed in the African Charter.  Almost all the violations alleged by the complainants were recognized by the Commission. 

The Commission recommended that the Mauritanian government takes appropriate measures to clarify the fate of disappeared persons, replace the identity documents that were taken, compensate victims, reinstate the rights of dismissed workers, put in place a strategy to eradicate degrading practices, and effectively enforce the abolition of slavery.

This decision drew principles that still shape the African system of human rights protection today. It was the first case of an international human rights tribunal explicitly focusing on discriminatory deprivation of citizenship. Moreover, the Commission ruled that a domestic amnesty law cannot deprive victims of their right to redress under the Charter. Conversely, the national amnesty law here worked in favour of the complainants, as it rendered the condition of exhaustion of local remedies moot. 

IHRDA subsequently remained engaged in efforts to advance implementation of the Commission’s recommendations, making the case an important part of its longstanding work to pursue justice and remedies for victims of serious human rights violations through the African human rights system.

Civil Society’s Journey Towards Enforcement 

This case illustrates that the pursuit of justice does not stop with the issuance of a favorable decision. Indeed, the Commission had no formal implementation and follow-up of its decisions under the African Charter or its Rules of Procedure at the time, nor had it established any specific enforcement procedure in its decision in the case. For the following decade, complainants and their counsel had to improvise a follow-up procedure that the Charter itself never provided: inconclusive meetings with Mauritanian officials, a joint mission to refugee camps in 2004, and, in 2011, a 900-page “implementation dossier” submitted by the IHRDA and the Open Society Justice Initiative, organised around the decision’s six recommendations. In 2007, Mauritania adopted a law criminalising slavery. In 2010, the Commission adopted Rule 112 of its Rules of Procedure, formalising a follow-up mechanism for the first time. The case in point gave rise to the Commission’s first genuine implementation hearing, held in April 2012. 

About the Author:

Antonin Pinchart is a legal intern at IHRDA. He is an international law student pursuing a master’s degree in International Organizations Law within the University Jean Moulin Lyon III in France.