Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    Zimbabwe Lawyers For Human Rights and Another V Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 120 (ACHPR 2008), para

    Uploaded by

    Mulugeta Bariso
    The document discusses a case involving same-sex rights in an unnamed respondent state. It summarizes: 1) Same-sex relationships are criminalized under the respondent state's domestic law, so the case is unlikely to be heard domestically. 2) The judiciary of the respondent state does not acknowledge same-sex rights and views them as immoral, and the chief justice has declared that the judiciary will not consider claims related to same-sex rights. 3) All judges of the high court, court of appeal, and supreme court were present at a press conference where the chief justice made this declaration, indicating it represents the views of the entire judiciary rather than just one individual.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zimbabwe Lawyers For Human Rights and Another V Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 120 (ACHPR 2008), para

    Uploaded by

    Mulugeta Bariso
    41 views2 pages
    The document discusses a case involving same-sex rights in an unnamed respondent state. It summarizes: 1) Same-sex relationships are criminalized under the respondent state's domestic law, so the case is unlikely to be heard domestically. 2) The judiciary of the respondent state does not acknowledge same-sex rights and views them as immoral, and the chief justice has declared that the judiciary will not consider claims related to same-sex rights. 3) All judges of the high court, court of appeal, and supreme court were present at a press conference where the chief justice made this declaration, indicating it represents the views of the entire judiciary rather than just one individual.

    Original Title

    Notes.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case involving same-sex rights in an unnamed respondent state. It summarizes: 1) Same-sex relationships are criminalized under the respondent state's domestic law, so the case is unlikely to be heard domestically. 2) The judiciary of the respondent state does not acknowledge same-sex rights and views them as immoral, and the chief justice has declared that the judiciary will not consider claims related to same-sex rights. 3) All judges of the high court, court of appeal, and supreme court were present at a press conference where the chief justice made this declaration, indicating it represents the views of the entire judiciary rather than just one individual.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    Zimbabwe Lawyers For Human Rights and Another V Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 120 (ACHPR 2008), para

    Uploaded by

    Mulugeta Bariso
    The document discusses a case involving same-sex rights in an unnamed respondent state. It summarizes: 1) Same-sex relationships are criminalized under the respondent state's domestic law, so the case is unlikely to be heard domestically. 2) The judiciary of the respondent state does not acknowledge same-sex rights and views them as immoral, and the chief justice has declared that the judiciary will not consider claims related to same-sex rights. 3) All judges of the high court, court of appeal, and supreme court were present at a press conference where the chief justice made this declaration, indicating it represents the views of the entire judiciary rather than just one individual.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Notes

    NUGAL

    The right is not covered by domestic law and even the act is criminalized under domestic

    law. Thus it is unlikely that the case will be heared.

    In addition, same sex right is not acknoweldged by judiciary of the respondent state and seen

    as immoral pursuant and the judiciary declared not see the case of NUGAL.

    All the judges of high court, court of appeal and supreme court were present at press

    confrence where the chief justice declared not to see the claims of NUGAL.

    For one thing the chief justice is the head of judiciary branch and he is authoritative on the

    ather hand the applicant submits since they all were present it is not an expression of single

    individual rather the opinoin of all of them.

    1. Furthermore, the Commission also submits that the exception to the rule on the basis of

    unduly prolonged procedure should apply. In determining what constitutes unduly prolonged

    procedure in Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Zimbabwe the Commission

    held that it can be guided by the circumstances of the case and by the common law doctrine of a

    reasonable man test.1 The applicant argues that given the nature of the present communication,

    prolonged procedure of more than three years cannot be defensible in the eyes of reasonable

    man.

    1
    Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 120 (ACHPR 2008), para
    60.
    Trokosi (see sudan case)

    is well aware of the series of serious and massive human rights violations that have occurred

    and are now occurring in Darfur and has taken no steps to halt or remedy those violations

    The African Commission is of the view that it is incumbent on the complainant to take all

    necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies. It is not

    enough for the complainant to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the

    State due to isolated incidences. In this regard, the African Commission would like to refer to

    the decision of the Human Rights Committee in A v Australia7 in which the Committee held

    that mere doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies did not absolve the author

    from pursuing such remedies.8 65. This not withstanding, the scale of the alleged abuses,

    the number of persons involved and the nature of the alleged abuses ipso facto makes local

    remedies unavailable, ineffective and insufficient.

    This Commission has held in Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania9 that it

    does not believe that the condition that internal remedies must have been exhausted can be

    applied literally to those cases in which it is neither practicable nor desirable for the

    complainants or the victims to pursue such internal channels of remedy in every case of

    violation of human rights. Such is the case where there are many victims. Due to the

    seriousness of the human rights situation and the large number of people involved, such

    remedies as might theoretically exist in the domestic courts are as a practical matter

    unavailable(suadan case)

    You might also like