CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS … Zeleza suggested deeper changes of substantive and procedural law and also amending the African Charter. 40 Viljoen and Louw 41 and Buerghental 42 requested a higher involvement of NGOs. An NGO could possibly get observer status from the African Commission. By doing this, it would be able to bring the cases before the Court under article 5, para 5 of the Protocol and consequently broker litigation for individuals. However, the process of observer status achievement may be expensive and quite complicated and the countries still have to allow the admissibility of applications submitted by NGOs, similarly to individuals. 43 Nevertheless, the Court reacted to the lack of jurisdiction over individual cases in its own way. It started an intensive propagation campaign. In 2010, the Court attended or organized more than 20 promotional activities to spread knowledge about the Court and persuade the states to accept the Protocol and make the declaration allowing individual and NGO’s access to the Court. 44 Since 2010, the Court has also organized visits to the countries to sensitize them to human rights. In 2011, the promotional activities of the Court were further enhanced by the financial support of the European Union 45 through the “55 Million Euro Support Programme to the African Union” (the Court received funding from this programme earlier as well). The Court organized the Continental Conference on its promotion and six sensitization seminars together with several courtesy visits of states’ high authorities. Moreover, the Court participated in 21 other promotional activities. In 2012, the Court undertook 3 sensitization visits and organized one seminar. It made three courtesy calls. It also participated in more than 20 other promotional activities, 46 and it continues to play a proactive role in human rights propagation till today. Those efforts brought relatively positive results. The Protocol has been ratified by 30 out of 54 AU members. Eight of them 47 made the declaration allowing individual access to the Court. Although this number is low, it allowed the Court to solve the first cases and finally develop the meritorious decision-making practice. The following section summarizes the decisions of the Court and focuses on the meritorious judgements. 40 ZELEZA, Paul T. ‘The Struggle for Human Rights in Africa’ Canadian Journal of African Studies , 2007, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 490. 41 VILJOEN, Frans; LOUW, Lirette. ‘State Compliance with the Recommendations of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1994-2000’ The American Journal of International Law , 2007, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 1-34. 42 BUERGHENTAL, Thomas. ‘The Evolving International Human Rights System’ The American Journal of International Law , 2006, no. 4, pp. 804. 43 KAMAU, Esther. ‘Individual Complaint Mechanism in the Jurisprudence of the African Human Rights System Vis a Vis the European and the Inter-American Human Rights Systems: Inadequacies and Prospects’ LL.M. Thesis . Central European University Budapest, 2011, p. 28-32. 44 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, The 2010 Activity Report of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Submitted Pursuant to Article 31 of the Protocol Establishing the Court , 24 – 28 January 2011, AU Doc EX.CL/650(XVIII), p. 10-11. 45 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Report of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) , 23 – 27 January 2012, AU Doc EX.CL/718(XX), p. 9. 46 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Report on the Activities of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights , 21 – 25 January 2013 AU Doc EX.CL/783(XXII), p. 26. 47 Benin, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Mali, Tanzania, Ghana, Rwanda, Côte d’Ivoire. Rwanda withdrew the declaration later.

313