State reporting under the African charter on human and peoples’ rights: A boost from the South

Journal of African Law

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 110-118

  Viljoen, Frans ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900678587     PISSN: 00218553     EISSN: 14643731     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0021855300012080     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. OAU doc. OAU/CAB/LAG/67/3/Rev.5, reprinted in (1964) 3 I.L.M. 1116.
2. See on this aspect, Makau Matua, “The African Human Rights Court: A two-legged stool?”, (1999) 21 Human Rights Quarterly 342, at 349.
3. As in the case of, for example, the Human Rights Committee.
4. As in the case of, for example, the Human Rights Commission.
5. As C. E. Welch, Protecting Human Rights in Africa, Philadelphia, 1995, 154, suggests.
6. See the African Commission's Second Annual Activity Report, para. 20.
7. At its fourth session. The full text of these guidelines was attached to the African Commission's Second Annual Activity Report, as Annex XII (“Guidelines for National Periodic Reports”).
8. See F. Viljoen, “Review of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights: 21 October 1986 to 1 January- 1997”, in C. Heyns (ed.), Human Rights in Africa 1997, The Hague, 1999, 47 at 96.
9. For a complete list of overdue reports as at 1 January, 1997, see Viljoen, Human Rights in Africa 1997, 93–94.
10. For discussions about reporting under the African Charter, see e.g. F. D. Gaer, “First fruits: Reporting by states under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights”, (1992) 10 Netherland Quarterly of Human Rights 29
11. and A. Danielsen, The State Reporting Procedure under the African Charter, Copenhagen, 1994.
12. For a more elaborate discussion, sec Viljoen, The State Reporting Procedure under the African Charter, 95–102.
13. Sec e.g. the comments in the Commission's 12th Annual Activity Report, in which it expressed “satisfaction at the quality of the reports submitted and the dialogue thus established … and encouraged the states to continue their efforts'” (AHG/215 (XXXV), para. 15).
14. See para. 16 of the Grand Bay (Mauritius) Declaration and Plan of Action (OAU doc. CONF HRA/DECL (I)).
15. This is in fact provided for under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. Rule 85(3) states as follows: “If. following the consideration of the reports, … the Commission decides that the State has not discharged some of its obligations under the Charter, it may address all general observations to the State concerned as it may deem necessary”.
16. Rule 86(2) further provides for the communication “to States parties to the Charter for comments, its general observations made following the consideration of the reports”.
17. Examination of State Reports vol. I to V, published by the Danish Centre for Human Rights.
18. See Rule 84(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission.
19. Examination of State Reports, vol. 1, 1995, at 31.
20. The representative was already absent from the 17th session. At its 25th session, the Commission adopted a resolution, requesting the Assembly to invite the Seychelles to abide by the Charter (AHG/215 (XXXV), Annexure IV).
21. At the 26th session, the delegation was again absent. The Commission once again deplored the fact that Seychelles had not sent any delegate to present its report. Examination of the report was deferred to the 27th session (see Final Communique of the 26th session of the African Commission, DOC/OS(XXYI) 150).