So Far, So Fair: The Local Remedies Rule in the Jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights

Abstract

Pending the establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights remains the only institutional body for the implementation of the rights guaranteed in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), reconstituted as the African Union (AU), established the Commission in 1987, after the entry into force of the African Charter, in 1986, and pursuant to its Article 64 (1). The Commission was established, inter alia, “to promote human and peoples' rights and ensure their protection in Africa.” That is, besides “any other tasks which may be entrusted to it” by the Assembly, the Commission performs three primary functions: it promotes and protects human and peoples' rights and interprets the provisions of the Charter.

Justice for All in the Americas? A Quantitative Analysis of Admissibility Decisions in the Inter-American Human Rights System

“…Only 15% of the petitions declared wholly or partially inadmissible were declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 46(1)(a). This is significant insofar as the Inter-American system's domestic remedies rule (as well as that of the European system) is more rigid than the African system's domestic remedies rule, which excuses non-compliance in a broader range of circumstances (see Udombana 2003). Nonetheless, Article 46(2), which excuses non-compliance in cases in which the domestic legal system of the state concerned "does not afford due process of law for protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated", has "denied access" to the petitioner, or has engaged in "unwarranted delay", 19 provides for some flexibility.…”