LCP4807 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2
2025 UNIQUE NO. DUE DATE 18
SEPTEMBER 2025
2.3 Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Under Article 5(2)(b) Optional Protocol, complaints are admissible only after all
available domestic remedies have been exhausted unless these are unduly prolonged
or ineffective.
In Fillastre v Bolivia (Comm. No. 336/1988), the HRC held that remedies must be both
available and effective; theoretical remedies do not bar admissibility.
Application:
• Mr Mbhekwe appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional
Court.
• Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutionality of the mandatory death
penalty.
• No further remedies exist.
• Thus, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied.
,2.4 No Concurrent International Procedure
Article 5(2)(a) Optional Protocol prohibits the HRC from examining a matter already
under another international investigation.
Application: The matter is not before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
or any other body.
Conclusion on Procedural Issues:
The case is admissible before the HRC — jurisdiction, standing, exhaustion, and
exclusivity are met.
, 3. MERITS OF THE CASE
3.1 Violation of Article 6 ICCPR – Right to Life
Text:
Article 6(1): “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be
protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
Article 6(2): “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death
may be imposed only for the most serious crimes…”
HRC Jurisprudence:
• In Lubuto v Zambia and Kennedy v Trinidad and Tobago (Comm. No.
845/1998), the HRC held that mandatory death sentences violate Article 6
because they fail to consider the personal circumstances of the offender or the
offence.
• The Committee has stressed that “most serious crimes” refers to crimes involving
intentional killing, but the penalty must be proportionate and imposed after fair
trial safeguards.
Application:
• Murder is a serious crime, but mandatory death penalty removes judicial
discretion and prevents consideration of mitigating factors.
• This constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, contrary to Article 6(1).
2025 UNIQUE NO. DUE DATE 18
SEPTEMBER 2025
2.3 Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
Under Article 5(2)(b) Optional Protocol, complaints are admissible only after all
available domestic remedies have been exhausted unless these are unduly prolonged
or ineffective.
In Fillastre v Bolivia (Comm. No. 336/1988), the HRC held that remedies must be both
available and effective; theoretical remedies do not bar admissibility.
Application:
• Mr Mbhekwe appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional
Court.
• Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutionality of the mandatory death
penalty.
• No further remedies exist.
• Thus, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied.
,2.4 No Concurrent International Procedure
Article 5(2)(a) Optional Protocol prohibits the HRC from examining a matter already
under another international investigation.
Application: The matter is not before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
or any other body.
Conclusion on Procedural Issues:
The case is admissible before the HRC — jurisdiction, standing, exhaustion, and
exclusivity are met.
, 3. MERITS OF THE CASE
3.1 Violation of Article 6 ICCPR – Right to Life
Text:
Article 6(1): “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be
protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
Article 6(2): “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death
may be imposed only for the most serious crimes…”
HRC Jurisprudence:
• In Lubuto v Zambia and Kennedy v Trinidad and Tobago (Comm. No.
845/1998), the HRC held that mandatory death sentences violate Article 6
because they fail to consider the personal circumstances of the offender or the
offence.
• The Committee has stressed that “most serious crimes” refers to crimes involving
intentional killing, but the penalty must be proportionate and imposed after fair
trial safeguards.
Application:
• Murder is a serious crime, but mandatory death penalty removes judicial
discretion and prevents consideration of mitigating factors.
• This constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life, contrary to Article 6(1).
