对非洲人权和人民权利委员会扣押标准的批评

Q3 Social Sciences
M. Jimoh
{"title":"对非洲人权和人民权利委员会扣押标准的批评","authors":"M. Jimoh","doi":"10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Seizure of communication is an important stage in litigating before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. At this stage a complainant is required to disclose a prima facie case, in the absence of which the communication will be refused. The seizure criteria are contained in the African Commission's Rules of Procedure. However, the procedural rules are as important as the substantive rules. Where there are burdensome procedural rules in human rights litigation, it becomes more difficult to gain access to justice. The African Commission's Rules of Procedure 2020 guide the communication proceedings of the Commission. The 2020 Rules have introduced some salient provisions that hitherto were not contained in the Rules. Under the 2020 Rules the Secretary can seize a communication during inter-session on behalf of the African Commission. Efforts have also been made to fully separate admissibility criteria from seizure criteria by deleting the admissibility criteria contained under the seizure criteria in the previous Rules. Consequently, it no longer is a requirement for a communication to pass a preliminary test of the admissibility criteria at the seizure stage. Notwithstanding these changes, the African Commission still applied the jurisprudence of the previous Rules in African Freedom of Expression Exchange & 15 Others (represented by FOI Attorneys) v Algeria & 27 Others (FOI), where the Commission also set a higher prima facie standard. This article critiques the Commission's seizure criteria and procedure. It argues that the 2020 Rules have introduced novel provisions that would necessitate the Africn Commission to change its seizure jurisprudence. It recommends that the Commission should adopt the 'might' test at the seizure stage rather than the wide prima facie standard it adopted in FOI. In this way the African Commission would have the opportunity to receive more compelling evidence of violation of the African Charter at the merit stage, rather than shutting out communications at a stage where compelling proof is not required.","PeriodicalId":36136,"journal":{"name":"African Human Rights Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A critique of the seizure criteria of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights\",\"authors\":\"M. Jimoh\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Seizure of communication is an important stage in litigating before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. At this stage a complainant is required to disclose a prima facie case, in the absence of which the communication will be refused. The seizure criteria are contained in the African Commission's Rules of Procedure. However, the procedural rules are as important as the substantive rules. Where there are burdensome procedural rules in human rights litigation, it becomes more difficult to gain access to justice. The African Commission's Rules of Procedure 2020 guide the communication proceedings of the Commission. The 2020 Rules have introduced some salient provisions that hitherto were not contained in the Rules. Under the 2020 Rules the Secretary can seize a communication during inter-session on behalf of the African Commission. Efforts have also been made to fully separate admissibility criteria from seizure criteria by deleting the admissibility criteria contained under the seizure criteria in the previous Rules. Consequently, it no longer is a requirement for a communication to pass a preliminary test of the admissibility criteria at the seizure stage. Notwithstanding these changes, the African Commission still applied the jurisprudence of the previous Rules in African Freedom of Expression Exchange & 15 Others (represented by FOI Attorneys) v Algeria & 27 Others (FOI), where the Commission also set a higher prima facie standard. This article critiques the Commission's seizure criteria and procedure. It argues that the 2020 Rules have introduced novel provisions that would necessitate the Africn Commission to change its seizure jurisprudence. It recommends that the Commission should adopt the 'might' test at the seizure stage rather than the wide prima facie standard it adopted in FOI. In this way the African Commission would have the opportunity to receive more compelling evidence of violation of the African Charter at the merit stage, rather than shutting out communications at a stage where compelling proof is not required.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Human Rights Law Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Human Rights Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Human Rights Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2022/v22n2a2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

扣押来文是向非洲人权和人民权利委员会提起诉讼的一个重要阶段。在这一阶段,申诉人必须披露表面证据确凿的案件,否则将拒绝来文。扣押标准载于非洲委员会的《议事规则》。然而,程序性规则与实质性规则同样重要。在人权诉讼程序规则繁琐的地方,诉诸司法就变得更加困难。非洲委员会《2020年议事规则》指导委员会的来文程序。《2020年规则》引入了一些迄今为止未包含在《规则》中的突出规定。根据《2020年规则》,秘书可以在闭会期间代表非洲委员会处理来文。还努力将可否受理标准与扣押标准完全分开,删除了以前《规则》中扣押标准所载的可否受理标准。因此,不再要求来文在扣押阶段通过受理标准的初步测试。尽管有这些变化,非洲委员会仍然适用之前《非洲言论自由交换规则》和《15其他人(由信息自由律师代表)诉阿尔及利亚和27其他人(信息自由)》的判例,在该案中,委员会还设定了更高的表面证据标准。这篇文章批评了委员会的扣押标准和程序。它辩称,《2020年规则》引入了新的条款,要求非洲委员会改变其扣押判例。它建议委员会在扣押阶段采用“可能”测试,而不是《信息自由法》中采用的广泛的表面证据标准。这样,非洲委员会将有机会在案情确凿的阶段收到更令人信服的违反《非洲宪章》的证据,而不是在不需要令人信服的证据的阶段将来文拒之门外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A critique of the seizure criteria of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
Seizure of communication is an important stage in litigating before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights. At this stage a complainant is required to disclose a prima facie case, in the absence of which the communication will be refused. The seizure criteria are contained in the African Commission's Rules of Procedure. However, the procedural rules are as important as the substantive rules. Where there are burdensome procedural rules in human rights litigation, it becomes more difficult to gain access to justice. The African Commission's Rules of Procedure 2020 guide the communication proceedings of the Commission. The 2020 Rules have introduced some salient provisions that hitherto were not contained in the Rules. Under the 2020 Rules the Secretary can seize a communication during inter-session on behalf of the African Commission. Efforts have also been made to fully separate admissibility criteria from seizure criteria by deleting the admissibility criteria contained under the seizure criteria in the previous Rules. Consequently, it no longer is a requirement for a communication to pass a preliminary test of the admissibility criteria at the seizure stage. Notwithstanding these changes, the African Commission still applied the jurisprudence of the previous Rules in African Freedom of Expression Exchange & 15 Others (represented by FOI Attorneys) v Algeria & 27 Others (FOI), where the Commission also set a higher prima facie standard. This article critiques the Commission's seizure criteria and procedure. It argues that the 2020 Rules have introduced novel provisions that would necessitate the Africn Commission to change its seizure jurisprudence. It recommends that the Commission should adopt the 'might' test at the seizure stage rather than the wide prima facie standard it adopted in FOI. In this way the African Commission would have the opportunity to receive more compelling evidence of violation of the African Charter at the merit stage, rather than shutting out communications at a stage where compelling proof is not required.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
African Human Rights Law Journal
African Human Rights Law Journal Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信