CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS … to use NGOs as amici curiae and to interpret any other relevant human rights documents, not only the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Those tools were used to the benefit of the applicants. Thus the Court starts to develop its own jurisprudence, including dissenting opinions. The twentieth anniversary of Addis Ababa Protocol is, therefore, a reason for at least a modest celebration. However, there is a different protocol waiting for the necessary amount of ratifications. The Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights 65 should merge the ACHPR with the African Court of Justice – a court which has not issued any decision yet. This new Protocol contains the provision (article 8, paragraph 3) conditioning the admissibility of individual complaints by a special declaration of the respondent’s country. This provision has the same meaning and will have the same impact as article 34(6) of the Protocol on establishment of the ACHPR. Moreover, the countries that have already made the declaration may not do so again after the ratification of this new Protocol. In other words, even the 8 countries that have already made the declaration allowing individual access to the Court would have to make it again after this second Protocol comes into force. This could result in a serious setback. The countries (even those that have already made the declaration) could be again reluctant to allow individual access to the African Court on Justice and Human Rights through a special declaration in order to gain the advantage of an inadmissibility objection for future proceedings. 66 Or at least the date of a new declaration could be unpleasantly delayed.

65 Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights adopted June 1, 2008 (not in force) AU Doc. Dec.EX/CL/58 (III). 66 Moreover, Rwanda consequently withdrew the declaration, which reduces the current number of states allowing individual access to 7 and demonstrates that re-declaring individual access could be a problem.“

317