| |
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
1. On the 24th October 2002, the Secretariat of the African Commission on
Human and Peoples’ Rights received from Mr. Zoro Bi Ballo Epiphane,
President of the Ivorian Human Rights Movement (MIDH) [FN1], a Communication
presented on behalf of this NGO, in application of Article 55 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Charter).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The MIDH is an NGO based in Côte d’Ivoire and which enjoys Observer
Status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights since
October 2001 (30th Ordinary Session).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Communication is instituted against the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (State
Party [FN2] to the African Charter and hereinafter referred to as Côte
d’Ivoire) and the MIDH alleges that the current policy of denial of identity
which has been in force for several years in Côte d’Ivoire and which some
people call “Ivoirité”, has led to the passing of laws by the State which
are of an unprecedented discriminatory nature in the country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] Côte d’Ivoire ratified the African Charter on the 6th January 1992.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Alluding to the Constitution currently in force in Côte d’Ivoire and
which is said to prevent a certain category of Ivorians from acceding to
certain public offices including that of President of the Republic, due to
their origin as well as the law on the identification of Ivorians which in
reality is said to be intended to deprive some Ivorians of their nationality
for political reasons, the Communication alleges specifically that the Law
No. 98-750 of the 23rd December 1998 establishing the regulation of Rural
Land Ownership, in its Article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2, is in contradiction
with the relevant provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights.
THE COMPLAINT
4. The MIDH contends that the Law No. 98-750 of the 23rd December 1998
establishing the regulation of Rural Land Ownership, in its Article 26,
paragraphs 1 and 2 is in contradiction with Articles 14 and 2 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
5. The MIDH therefore requests the African Commission to recommend the
review of the Law No. 98-750 of the 23rd December 1998 establishing the
regulation of the Rural Land Ownership in its Article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2
to Côte d’Ivoire.
THE PROCEDURE
6. By letter ACHPR/COMM 262/2002 of the 30th October 2002, the Secretariat
of the African Commission acknowledged receipt of the Communication to the
MIDH specifying that this Communication would be recorded in the Agenda of
the Commission which would consider it for seizure at its 33rd Ordinary
Session scheduled for the 5th to 19th May in Niamey, Niger.
7. During its 33rd Ordinary Session which took place from 15th to 29th May
2003 in Niamey, Niger, the Commission examined this Communication and
decided to be seized of it.
8. By Note Verbale ACHPR/COMM/262/2002 of the 11th June 2002, the
Secretariat of the Commission wrote to the Respondent State informing it of
the decision and requesting it to convey its arguments on the admissibility
of the case to the Commission within three months. A copy of the complaint
had been attached to this memo. It is important to recall that the copy of
this complaint had been handed to the delegate of the Respondent State
during the 33rd Ordinary Session of the Commission which had taken place in
May 2003 in Niamey, Niger.
9. By letter ACHPR/COMM/262/2002 of even date, the Secretariat of the
Commission informed the Complainant of the Commission’s decision and
requesting it to convey to the latter its arguments on the admissibility of
the case within three months.
10. During its 34th Ordinary Session which was held from 6th to 19th
November 2003 in Banjul, The Gambia, the delegation from the Respondent
State presented Côte d’Ivoire’s reaction to the Communication. The
delegation further delivered to the African Commission a written memo in
which figured the said observations and arguments pertaining to the
admissibility of the Communication.
11. At its 35th Ordinary Session which was held from 21st May to 4th June in
Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission considered the Communication and
deferred its decision on the admissibility of the Complaint to its 36th
Ordinary Session.
12. By letters dated 21st June 2004 the Secretariat of the African
Commission communicated this decision to all the Parties to the
Communication and requesting them to convey to the Commission, for all
intents and purposes, any extra arguments they may have on admissibility.
13. On the 27th September 2004, the Secretariat of the African Commission
received a letter from the Complainant in which it outlined its reaction to
the arguments put forward by the Respondent State with regard to the
admissibility of the Complaint.
14. On the 11th October 2004, the Secretariat conveyed this memo to the
Respondent State.
15. At its 36th Ordinary Session which took place from 23rd November to 7th
December 2004 in Dakar, Senegal, the African Commission examined the
Complaint and declared it admissible.
16. By Note Verbale of the 20th December 2004, the Secretariat conveyed this
decision to the Respondent State and invited it to submit its arguments on
the merits within three months, to enable it examine the Complaint at this
stage during the 37th Ordinary Session.
17. On this same date a letter had been sent to the Complainant informing it
of the African Commission’s decision and requesting its arguments on the
merits of the Complaint.
18. During its 37th Ordinary Session which took place from the 27th April to
11th May 2005 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission examined the
Complaint and, granting the request of the Respondent State, decided to
defer its ruling on the merits of the Communication to its 38th Ordinary
Session.
19. This decision had been conveyed to the Parties to the Complaint on the
30th June 2005. On this occasion, the Secretariat had notably reminded the
Respondent State that its arguments on the merits of the case were still
pending.
20. On the 12th September 2005, in the absence of any reaction from the
Respondent State, a reminder letter had been sent to it.
21. On the 7th November 2005, the Respondent State conveyed its arguments on
the merits of the Communication to the Secretariat.
22. On the 10th November 2005, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt and
conveyed the said arguments to the Complainant for its reaction.
23. During the 38th Ordinary Session which was held from 21st November to
5th December 2005 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission examined the
Complaint and, in the absence of any reaction from the Complainant with
regard to the supplementary arguments submitted by the Respondent State on
the merits of the Complaint, decided to defer the case to its 39th Session.
24. On the 10th January 2006, the Secretariat informed the Parties of this
decision.
25. On the 23rd March 2006, the Secretariat sent a reminder to the
Complainant for its reaction to the memo from the Respondent State on the
merits of the case. A copy of the document had been attached to the reminder
letter, for all intents and purposes.
26. During its 39th Ordinary Session held in Banjul from 11th to 25th May
2006, the Commission decided to defer its decision on the merits to its 40th
Ordinary Session and so informed the Parties by letter ACHPR/LPROT/COMM
262/2002/RK dated 30th June 2006.
27. On the 28th September 2006, the Secretariat of the African Commission
wrote a letter ACHPR/LPROT/COMM 262/2002/VC to the Complainant reminding it
that its reaction to the arguments of the Respondent State was still pending.
28. The Complainant has not reacted to the arguments submitted by the
Respondent State on the merits of the Complaint. Another reminder had again
been sent to it in September 2006 and this also has remained without
response. The African Commission gave a last chance to the Complainant to
react to the arguments submitted by the Respondent State and deferred its
consideration of the merits of the Complaint to the 41st Ordinary Session.
29. The Complainant, by letter dated 17th November 2006 and sent to the
Secretariat of the Commission on the 20th November 2006, indicated that it
did not have any new arguments to submit following the Memorandum on the
merits presented by the Ivorian Government.
30. During its 41st Ordinary Session held in Accra, in May 2007, the African
Commission registered the request submitted by one of the Parties, notably
the Ivorian State, which consisted in requesting the ACHPR to defer its
decision on the merits on the grounds that the current reconciliation
process in Côte d’Ivoire would take care of the subject of the dispute which
opposed the MIDH (IHRM) and the Ivorian State in the context of an amicable
settlement.
31. The African Commission, at its 41st Ordinary Session held in Accra,
Ghana in May 2007, had decided to grant the request submitted by the
Respondent State and had deferred its decision on the merits to the 42nd
Ordinary Session scheduled to take place in Brazzaville, Congo, from 14th to
28th November 2007.
32. Since its decision on deferment taken at its 41st Ordinary Session in
Accra, Ghana, up to the 42nd Session held in Brazzaville, Congo, the African
Commission has not received any other comment or request from the two
Parties, namely neither from the Complainant Party, the MIDH (IHRM), nor the
Ivorian State
33. However, during the 42st Ordinary Session, in Brazzaville, Congo, the
African Commission ha received an new letter from the Ivorian State which
request the ACHPR to defer again its decision on the merits on the grounds
that the current reconciliation process in Ivory Coast..
34. In this same letter received by the ACHPR during its 42st Ordinary
Session, the Ivorian State provides some annexes showing how the
negotiations between the State and one association, specially the
Association of the Malians in Ivory Coast, are going in process and also
promises to send in the next future others evidences of the process of the
negotiations in Ivory Coast, specially between Open Society Justice and the
MIDH.
THE LAW: ADMISSIBILITY
35. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights stipulates in its
Article 56 that the Communications referred to in Article 55, to be
considered, should necessarily be sent after exhaustion of local remedies,
if any, unless the procedure of exhaustion of local remedies is unduly
prolonged. It is important to examine the applicability of the conditions
governing the exhaustion of local remedies in the present Communication.
36. In this case, the Complainant indicates that “In Côte d’Ivoire, the
remedies against the laws should be brought before the Constitutional
Council. Whereas according to Article 77 of the Ivorian Constitution laws
can only be brought before the Constitutional Council before they are
promulgated”. It concludes therefore that “the law in question can no longer
be brought before the Ivorian Constitutional Council as it has already been
promulgated, indeed as well as all of its decrees of application”.
37. The Complainant further contends that it could not have had recourse to
a local remedy in this case as Article 77 of the Constitution of Côte
d’Ivoire stipulates that laws can only be brought before the Constitutional
Council by the Speaker of the National Assembly, or by at least one tenth of
the National Assembly Members, or by Parliamentary Groups, or by the Human
Rights Defender Associations which are legally established and only where it
is a question of laws which are relative to public liberties where the said
Associations are concerned; which is obviously not the case of the
contentious law currently being called into question.
38. The MIDH concludes therefore that the obligation for the exhaustion of
local remedies beforehand is not, as a result, applicable to the present
Complaint.
39. In its memorandum conveyed to the African Commission in November 2003,
the Respondent State argues that, for its part, the Communication is
inadmissible due to the “non-exhaustion of local remedies and to the
disparaging and insulting nature of the said Communication”.
40. The Respondent State points out that pertaining to the non-exhaustion of
local remedies, contrary to the affirmation of the Complainant, there is, by
virtue of the provisions of Article 96 of the Ivorian Constitution, the
possibility for any Complainant to invoke a plea on the unconstitutionality
of a law, since the modalities for the implementation of this remedy are
governed by law. The fact that the Complainant did not use this remedy,
contends the Respondent State, shows that it has not exhausted local
remedies and that the Communication should therefore be declared
inadmissible.
41. Reacting to this argument in a counter memorandum addressed to the
African Commission in September 2004, the Complainant argues that no local
remedy had been available in this case, even if other parties had access to
such a remedy. The Complainant further observed that before the African
Commission, the condition for the exhaustion of local remedies should be
assessed in relation to the plaintiff (in this case the MIDH) and to the
plaintiff alone, and not in relation to third parties who may be entitled to
complain about the alleged violation.
42. Thus, the Complainant argues that the recourse to a plea of
unconstitutionality invoked by the Respondent State to say that a final
remedy exists locally is not available to it as it is only possible to
invoke a plea of the unconstitutionality of a law during a hearing. Whereas
the MIDH, a legal entity which does not own property in the domain of rural
landownership, cannot be the object of a suit of expropriation or dispute,
making possible the application of the law in question and where the
possibility of the remedy alluded to by the Respondent State could be
implemented. The very fact that the MIDH cannot initiate the remedy of a
plea of unconstitutionality shows, argues the Complainant, that this remedy
is not available to it.
43. Furthermore, concludes the Complainant, the implementation of the
recourse to a plea of unconstitutionality by foreign individuals, owners of
land in the rural real estate is “illusory” given the context which
currently prevails in Côte d’Ivoire where “any questioning of decisions by
the public Authorities is seen as an act of belligerence”.
44. With regard to the “disparaging and insulting nature” of the
Communication, the Respondent State indicates that the Complainant referred
to Côte d’Ivoire as “a xenophobic and exclusionist country” and where
“foreigners are called invaders”, the nationals as “Ivorians of extraction”
and “appropriate Ivorians” in the name of a “policy of denial of identity”.
The Respondent State considers, in particular, that the use of these terms
is insulting towards Côte d’Ivoire which has more than 26% of foreigners
within its entire population.
45. Moreover, the Respondent State contends that the use of the words like
“xenophobia” and “exclusionist” to qualify Cote d’Ivoire or to lead people
to believe that this country is trying to establish a policy of “denial of
identity” is an insult. The Respondent State concludes that the
Communication, for the above-mentioned reasons, should be declared
inadmissible.
46. The Complainant reacts to these arguments by saying that the words
quoted are not used to qualify the State or its Institutions but simply to
describe a situation which is “much sadder” where large-scale assassinations
of individuals had been perpetrated “just because of their nationality or
presumed nationality of origin”.
THE DISPARAGING AND INSULTING NATURE OF THE WORDS USED IN THE COMMUNICATION
47. The Respondent State contends that the words used by the Complainant in
the Communication are disparaging and insulting for Cote d’Ivoire. Indeed,
words like “xenophobia”, “exclusionist”, “discriminatory”, are used in the
Communication but the African Commission considers that these words are not
used in an insulting and disparaging context for the Respondent State but
rather have been used to describe a situation which has been condemned and
it would be difficult to describe it differently.
48. The African Commission therefore does not accept the argument that the
words used in the Communication are disparaging and insulting against the
Respondent State.
THE NON-EXHAUSTION OF LOCAL REMEDIES
49. According to the arguments submitted by the Parties to this Complaint
the African Commission observes that local remedies exist against the law
being challenged but it would appear that the Complainant does not have the
necessary qualifications to exercise this remedy.
50. In effect, the remedy consisting in bringing the disputed law before the
Constitutional Council is only available for a certain category of citizens,
in this case, the President of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the Members
of Parliament.
51. With regard to the remedy of a plea of unconstitutionality of the law in
question, if it does exist, it is clear that the Complainant cannot use it.
Not being a land owner in the rural real estate domain, the Complainant is
indeed hardly likely to be a party to an eventual suit linked to the
implementation of the law being challenged.
52. As a legal entity, the Complainant is well placed to question a legal
provision of a State Party to the African Charter which is said to violate
the said Charter without prejudice to the facility reserved to third parties
to institute proceedings against the provision in question before the
national courts.
53. Now, under the terms of Article 19 of the Law No. 2001-303 of the 5th
June 2004 determining the organization and functioning of the Constitutional
Council the proceedings for a plea of unconstitutionality take place during
a hearing. Therefore it logically follows that the recourse to a plea of
unconstitutionality is not available for the Complainant.
54. The African Commission accepts that remedies against the law in question
exist locally but also notes that the Complainant cannot use them as it does
have the qualification/possibility to do so. Whereas the African Commission
feels that the assessment of the capacity to use and exhaust local remedies
is done in relation to the Complainant and to him alone.
55. In this context it is important to recall the jurisprudence of the
African Commission pertaining to the condition of exhaustion of local
remedies. In effect, the African Commission considers that local remedies
should be available (for the Complainant), effective and sufficient. Thus,
the African Commission considers that a local remedy is available if the
plaintiff can institute a lawsuit without any obstacle; the remedy is
effective if it offers the plaintiff a prospect of success and if this
remedy is sufficient and capable of rectifying the alleged [FN3] violation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3]Grouped Communications 147/95 and 149/96 – Sir Dawda K. Jawara/The
Gambia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. Since in this particular case it appears clearly that the Complainant
does not have the qualification/possibility to use the available local
remedies, the African Commission considers that it is as if there is no
local remedy available for the Complainant.
For these reasons, the African Commission declares the Communication
admissible.
THE MERITS
57. The Respondent Party, in its arguments on the merits, challenges the
MIDH’s assertion that the law on rural land ownership is one of the major
reasons for the civil war which is tearing Côte d’Ivoire apart.
58. The Respondent Party considers this assertion as serious and inaccurate.
Serious because it insinuates that it is the foreigners, the only ones
concerned by Article 26 of the Law being questioned, who have taken up arms
against the State of Côte d’Ivoire. Inaccurate because this is not the cause
being invoked by Grouped Communications 147/95 and 149/96 – Sir Dawda K.
Jawara/The Gambia those who have taken up arms, and that besides, “112
persons are concerned by the effects of Article 26 out of which 40 are
Companies and 112 are physical persons”. The Respondent Party notes that the
Communications from the Complainant are only stories of the undertaking,
preparation and justification of violence.
59. After its preliminary observations on what it calls the “real reasons”
of the Complainant, the Respondent Party was particularly anxious to send a
copy of the Official Gazette of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire containing the
promulgation decree signed by the President of the Republic, of the new Law
No. 2004-412 of the 14th August 2004 amending Article 26 of the Law
No.98-750 of 23rd December 1998 relating to rural land ownership to the
African Commission.
60. On the basis of this new Law No. 2004-412 which modifies the provisions
of Article 26 of the former Law 98-750 on which the Complainant has based
its Communication, the Ivorian Government requests the African Commission to
declare the Communication 262/2002 of the MIDH as groundless and to close
this case by applying the principle of topicality which requires that all
administrative or legal bodies assess the facts of the case in the condition
in which they are on the day of ruling.
61. The Complainant considers it needless to submit fresh arguments since on
the one hand the admissibility of the Communication has not been questioned,
and on the other, because the Law No. 98-750 of 2nd December 1998,
identified as being in violation of the provisions of Articles 2 and 14 of
the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights has been judged prejudicial
to the fundamental Human Rights by numerous Courts whose competence and
respectability have been unanimously recognized.
62. Furthermore, the Complainant observes that the various peace
negotiations on the Ivorian crisis have, after the MIDH, tackled the issue
and recommended the modification of Article 26 of the Law 98-750 of 23rd
December 1998. The same is true for the Marcoussis Accords of 24th January
2003, in their Item IV – land property system, paragraph 2.
63. The Complainant all the same accepts that, like the Government of Côte
d’Ivoire, following the Marcoussis Accords, the National Assembly of Côte
d’Ivoire had passed a new Law No. 2004-412 dated 14th August 2004 on the
amendment of Article 26 of the Law No. 98-750 of 23rd December 1998 and
relative to rural land ownership.
64. The Complainant thus feels that it has scored a victory and requests the
African Commission to mention this credit in its decision on the merits.
DEBATE ON THE NEED TO PURSUE CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OR OTHERWISE
65. The Commission takes note of the request from the Respondent Party to
declare the Communication submitted by the MIDH as groundless, due to the
fact that the provisions of Article 26 of the Law 98-750 being challenged by
the Complainant had been modified by the new Law 2004-412 and that in
consequence this modification gives the plaintiff satisfaction.
66. The Commission notes with interest the arguments raised by the Ivorian
State to justify its request for declaring the Communication groundless and
for closing the case, notably the principle of topicality which requires
that all judicial or administrative bodies assess the facts of a case in the
state in which they are on the day of its ruling.
67. The Commission further notes that the Ivorian State, in its arguments on
the merits, alludes to the former jurisprudence of the Commission (notably
Communications 66/92 Lawyers Committee for Human Rights vs. Tanzania, 22/88
International Pen vs. Burkina Faso and 16/88 Cultural Committee for
Democracy in Benin vs. Benin). The Commission observes that the Respondent
Party relies mainly on this said jurisprudence to base its request for the
Communication to be pronounced groundless and for the closure of the case.
68. The Commission considers, furthermore, that the Complainant, in spite of
the fact that it does not bring any new arguments following the conclusions
drawn on the merits by the Ivorian Government, does not for all that
renounce its suit before the Commission and does not withdraw its Complaint.
Better still, the Complainant is asking the Commission to recognize, on
making its decision, its credit for having been the first Organization to
have drawn attention on the prejudicial nature of the Article 26 of the Law
98-750 on rural landownership to Human Rights.
69. The Commission moreover notes the concern expressed by the Complainant
to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the Law 2004-412
amending Article 26 of the Law, and above all, acquisition of help in
obtaining compensation for the prejudices suffered by numerous populations
for six (6) years during which the Law No. 98-750 of the 23rd December had
remained in force.
70. From the preceding arguments submitted by the two Parties, the
Commission considers it its responsibility to determine whether or not to
pursue the consideration of the merits of the present Communication.
VIEW OF THE COMMISSION ON THE NEED TO PURSUE CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS OR
OTHERWISE
71. The Commission considers that the Communications 66/92, 22/88 and 16/88
invoked by the Respondent Party to justify its request to the Commission to
declare the Communication groundless and to close the case, should be
assessed on a case by case basis and can in no way constitute a constant
jurisprudence of the Commission.
72. Relying on its jurisprudence, the Commission has always dealt with the
Communications by ruling on the alleged facts at the time of the
presentation of the Communication (see Communication 27/89, 46/91 and 99/93
World Organization against Torture & al / Rwanda.). This jurisprudence had
been confirmed by the more recent decisions relating to Communications
222/98 and 229/99 – Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman / Sudan.
73. The Commission takes good note of the amendments to the Article 26
introduced by the new Law 2004-412 and which are geared towards better
guaranteeing the right to property, but wishes to clarify that these new
legislative provisions do not wipe out the violations caused by the
application of the former Law 98-750 which produced effects for six (6)
years, and therefore it was beholden, by virtue of its mandate of protection,
to rule on Communication 262/2002.
74. The Commission thereby concludes that, even if the law had been amended
since then, this change does not automatically draw a decision from the
Commission to close the case. In consequence, the Commission decides to
pursue consideration of the merits of Communication 262/2002 submitted by
the MIDH against the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MERITS: PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
VIOLATED
75. The Complainant alleges the violation of Article 2 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which stipulates that:
“Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms recognized and guaranteed in the present Charter without
distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortune,
birth or other status”.
76. The Complainant also alleges the violation of Article 14 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which stipulates that:
“The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon
in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the Community
and this in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws”.
77. The Commission notes that in its observations on the merits, the
Government of Côte d’Ivoire does not dispute the violations of Articles 2
and 14 of the African Charter by the Article 26 of the Law 98-750 on rural
land ownership. On the contrary, it simply observes that its effects are
limited as “the number of individuals concerned is from 112 of which 40 are
Companies and 112 physical persons, and that among these, there is a very
small minority of Africans”.
78. As a result, the Commission considers that the provisions of Article 26
of the Law 98-750 are in violation of Articles 2 and 14 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and notes that the argument that its
effects are said to be limited to a certain number of persons and only
concerns a very small minority of Africans is irrelevant from the legal
point of view and therefore cannot stand. On the other hand, such an
interpretation confirms the violation of Article 2 of the African Charter
which guarantees the enjoyment of rights and freedoms without distinction of
any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortune, birth or
other status. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the application of
Article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law 98-750 would give rise to the
expropriation of their land from a category of the population, on the sole
basis of their origin; whereas, it observes that the Ivorian Government, in
its remarks on the merits, does not advance any argument linked to the
“public need” or to “ the general interest of the community” which could
exceptionally justify a violation to the right to property as guaranteed by
the Charter, specifically in its Article 14.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE AFRICAN COMMISSION
Observes that the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire is in violation of the
provisions of Articles 2 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights.
Observes that, even if Article 26 of the Law 98-750 of 23rd December 1998
had been amended by the Law 2004-412 of the 14th August 2004, it has already
shown its effects during the six (6) years of its application.
Takes note of the current reconciliation process and of the ongoing
negotiations in Cote d’Ivoire.
Recommends to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire to ensure the effective
application of the provisions of the new Law 2004-412 of 14th August 2004
amending Article 26 of the Law 98-750 of the 14th August 2004.
Recommends to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire to ensure, if this has not
already been done, that all landowners who may have been deprived of their
land by virtue of the application of the former provisions of Article 26 of
the Law 98-750 are restored in their rights.
Urges the Government of Côte d’Ivoire, within the framework of the current
drive to achieve national reconciliation, to evaluate, if this has not
already been done, the damages that the victims may have suffered by virtue
of the application of the provisions of Article 26 of the Law 98-750, and to
pay, if need be, fair and equitable compensation on their behalf.
Strongly urges the Ivorian State to pursue, within the framework of the
current national reconciliation process, the amicable settlement of all the
disputes arising out of the application of the former discriminatory laws
and to scrupulously ascertain that the principle of equality before the law,
as stipulated in the African Charter, notably in its Article 2, is respected
under all circumstances.
Done at the 43rd Ordinary Session held in Ezulwini, Kingdom of Swaziland,
from 7th to 22nd May 2008 |
|
