, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
Answer 1
Can the DAA take this case to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights?
Yes, the Developed Afrika for All (DAA) can take this case to the African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission), provided that the communication meets the
admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(African Charter). The DAA, as a regional non-governmental organisation, has standing to submit a
communication on behalf of Mr Martin Ricardor and his family, given the African Commission’s
generous approach to locus standi (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2004, para.
38). However, the procedural history—specifically the dismissal of the case by the Constitutional
Court of Sofala on grounds of budgetary constraints—raises significant questions regarding the
exhaustion of local remedies. Furthermore, the merits of the case involve potential violations of
several substantive rights under the African Charter and other regional and international instruments
ratified by Sofala. A critical analysis of procedural issues, substantive violations, and possible
remedies follows.
Procedural Issues: Admissibility under Article 56 of the African Charter
The admissibility of any communication before the African Commission is governed by Article 56
of the African Charter, which sets out seven cumulative requirements (African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, art. 56). The DAA must satisfy each of these conditions, and the most
contentious will likely be the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) (African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1998, para. 38).
Regarding locus standi, the DAA is on firm procedural ground. The African Commission has
consistently rejected narrow interpretations of standing, adopting an actio popularis approach that
permits NGOs to bring communications on behalf of victims without requiring a direct personal
interest (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2004, para. 38). In Social and
Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) v Nigeria, the Commission explicitly held that the identity
requirement under Article 56(1) is satisfied by disclosing the author’s name and does not require the
author to be the victim (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2001, para. 40).
Similarly, in Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v Democratic
Republic of Congo, the Commission affirmed that NGOs have standing to represent individuals who
are unable to bring claims themselves, particularly where those individuals live in remote areas with
limited access to legal resources (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2014, para.
45). The Ricardor family resides in Magadi, a village with no roads, schools, or health facilities, and
Mr Ricardor has already demonstrated persistence by litigating up to the Constitutional Court. The
DAA can therefore submit the communication on their behalf without facing a standing challenge.
The requirement that the communication be compatible with the African Charter and the Constitutive
Act of the African Union (Article 56(2)) is straightforwardly satisfied. The claims concern economic,
social, and cultural rights—such as access to clean water, education, health, and adequate
housing—all of which are explicitly or implicitly protected under the African Charter. Articles 16
(right to health), 17 (right to education), 14 (right to property), and 22 (right to economic and social
development) are directly relevant (African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, arts. 14,
16, 17, 22). Moreover, Sofala has ratified the African Charter in its entirety, so there is no question
of incompatibility.
Answer 1
Can the DAA take this case to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights?
Yes, the Developed Afrika for All (DAA) can take this case to the African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission), provided that the communication meets the
admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(African Charter). The DAA, as a regional non-governmental organisation, has standing to submit a
communication on behalf of Mr Martin Ricardor and his family, given the African Commission’s
generous approach to locus standi (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2004, para.
38). However, the procedural history—specifically the dismissal of the case by the Constitutional
Court of Sofala on grounds of budgetary constraints—raises significant questions regarding the
exhaustion of local remedies. Furthermore, the merits of the case involve potential violations of
several substantive rights under the African Charter and other regional and international instruments
ratified by Sofala. A critical analysis of procedural issues, substantive violations, and possible
remedies follows.
Procedural Issues: Admissibility under Article 56 of the African Charter
The admissibility of any communication before the African Commission is governed by Article 56
of the African Charter, which sets out seven cumulative requirements (African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, art. 56). The DAA must satisfy each of these conditions, and the most
contentious will likely be the exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) (African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1998, para. 38).
Regarding locus standi, the DAA is on firm procedural ground. The African Commission has
consistently rejected narrow interpretations of standing, adopting an actio popularis approach that
permits NGOs to bring communications on behalf of victims without requiring a direct personal
interest (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2004, para. 38). In Social and
Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) v Nigeria, the Commission explicitly held that the identity
requirement under Article 56(1) is satisfied by disclosing the author’s name and does not require the
author to be the victim (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2001, para. 40).
Similarly, in Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) v Democratic
Republic of Congo, the Commission affirmed that NGOs have standing to represent individuals who
are unable to bring claims themselves, particularly where those individuals live in remote areas with
limited access to legal resources (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2014, para.
45). The Ricardor family resides in Magadi, a village with no roads, schools, or health facilities, and
Mr Ricardor has already demonstrated persistence by litigating up to the Constitutional Court. The
DAA can therefore submit the communication on their behalf without facing a standing challenge.
The requirement that the communication be compatible with the African Charter and the Constitutive
Act of the African Union (Article 56(2)) is straightforwardly satisfied. The claims concern economic,
social, and cultural rights—such as access to clean water, education, health, and adequate
housing—all of which are explicitly or implicitly protected under the African Charter. Articles 16
(right to health), 17 (right to education), 14 (right to property), and 22 (right to economic and social
development) are directly relevant (African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981, arts. 14,
16, 17, 22). Moreover, Sofala has ratified the African Charter in its entirety, so there is no question
of incompatibility.
