CHAIRMAN: Prof. Isaac Nguema
VICE CHAIRMAN: Prof. Emmanuel V.O. Dankwa
COMMISSIONERS: Mr. Robert H. Kisanga, Dr. Mohamed H. Ben Salem, Dr.
Vera V. Duarte Martins, Prof. U. Oji Umozurike, Mr. Atsu Koffi Amega,
Mr. Kamel Rezzag-Bara, Mrs. Julienne Ondziel-Gnelenga, Mr.
Youssoupha Ndiaye, Mr. Alioune Blondin Beye
||Joana v. Madag., Comm. 108/93, 10th
ACHPR AAR Annex X (1996-1997)
||IHRDA, Compilation of Decisions on
Communications of the African Commission On Human and Peoplesí
Rights Extracted from the Commissionís Activity Reports 1994-2001,
at 152 (2002); Documents of the African Commission on Human and
Peoplesí Rights, at 573 (Malcolm D. Evans & Rachel Murray eds.,
2001); (2000) AHRLR 141 (ACHPR 1996)
 The complainant was a citizen of Madagascar, who was a prominent
political figure and had been a candidate for president. He was arrested on
1 June 1993 under a special decree, which provided for his detention for an
indefinite period of time without being told the reason and without the
right to appear before a judge. His sons were also arrested.
 According to the court judgment of 17 December 1993, the complainant is
guilty of trespass in government buildings and acquisition of arms without
authorization. He was given a one-year suspended sentence. His sons were
acquitted. The communication does not include his address.
 The communication is dated 20 July 1993. The state concerned was
notified by mail on 6 January 1994.
 The Commission proceeded to examine the necessary facts in order to be
sure that the United Nations Human Rights Committee had not been seized of
the same communication and in order to try to know the address of the
 The information received revealed that this case had not been submitted
to the United Nations and that the complainant had died.
 Article 56.1 of the Charter requires that communications presented
pursuant to Article 55 indicate their author, even if the author has
requested anonymity. The Commission must be in communication with the author,
to know his identity and status, to be assured of his continued interest in
the communication and to request supplementary information if the case
requires it. This is reflected in Rule 104 of the Rules of Procedure of the
 In the past, the Commission made decisions on the admissibility in the
case where the requirements of Article 56.1 had not been fulfilled.
 The Commission closed communication 62/92 (Committee for the Defence of
Human Rights in respect of Ms Jennifer Madike /Nigeria) because two letters
of reminder to the complainant had gone unanswered. The Commission
interpreted this prolonged silence on the part of the complainant as ďloss
of contact with the complainant.Ē
 In its decision on communication 70/92 (Ibrahima Dioumessi, Sekou Kande,
Ousmane Kaba /Guinea), the Commission declared the communication
inadmissible because the complainant had included no address and the address
could not be located through other means.
 In the present case, the Commission has not had contact with the
complainant since the case was brought.
 The Commission has tried various means in an attempt to contact the
complainant through other individuals. The address of the complainantís
family reached the Commission in the same letter as news of the
complainantís death. Efforts made to contact the deceasedís legal successor
have not borne results.
 FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION declares the communication
 Taken at the 20th session, Grand Bay, Mauritius, October 1996.