Applying these criteria to the facts
Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2025 4:04 am
In dealing with the substance of the interim measures request, the Court recalled from its jurisprudence that it can only order interim measures if the requirements of “extreme gravity, urgency and the prevention of irreparable harm” are met. Elaborating on these concepts, the Court held that extreme gravity “presupposes that there is a real risk and it is imminent that irreparable harm could take place before the Court renders its final judgement”. The Court determined that there is urgency “each time acts which may cause irreparable harm could take place at any time before the Court renders its final decision in the matters”. (Order, para 33).
The Court noted that the execution of detention and arrest warrants against a group of mostly political figures could seriously undermine their political rights. It considered that this situation was particularly acute and urgent in the case of Guillaume Soro, who was planning to stand for election in a short time (Order, paras 34-35). The Court further noted that arrest and detention warrants are usually issued as protective measures or when there is a risk the accused will not appear; however, these justifications office 365 database were not engaged in the case of a group of prominent individuals whose addresses were well known. Additionally, the Court placed emphasis on the presumption of innocence the accused benefit from whilst investigations are ongoing (Order, paras 36-37). The Court concluded that this was a situation where there was a serious risk of the applicants being deprived of the enjoyment of their rights and whose unforeseeable consequences may cause them irreparable harm. It subsequently ordered a stay of the warrants pending its final decision on the merits. (Order, paras 38-39).
Almost immediately following the Court’s Order, Côte d’Ivoire withdrew its special declaration. In doing so, it cited the African Court’s “grave and intolerable actions”, which violate its sovereignty and “undermine the foundations of the rule of law by weakening its justice system”.
Implications of the decision
Côte d’Ivoire’s decision to withdraw its special declaration is a setback for those seeking accountability for human rights violations within the country. Despite an end to the mass violence and abuses that characterised the 2010-2011 post-election crisis, reports of human rights violations persist. A recent Universal Periodic Review submission by the Coalition of Ivorian Human Rights Defenders (CIDDH) and Swiss NGO CIVICUS, details the frequent intimidation and harassment of journalists, assaults on human rights defenders and the violent repression of peaceful protests within Côte d’Ivoire. Another recent report by Human Rights Watch, points to abuses by the national security forces, improper Executive influence over elections and a heavily politicised judiciary, which impedes access to justice. In a country where human rights violations are so prevalent, and where the courts are neither impartial nor independent, the power to submit complaints directly to the African Court has become an increasingly relied on avenue of redress for individuals and the NGOs. The extinguishment of this right is consequently a blow for these groups.
The Court noted that the execution of detention and arrest warrants against a group of mostly political figures could seriously undermine their political rights. It considered that this situation was particularly acute and urgent in the case of Guillaume Soro, who was planning to stand for election in a short time (Order, paras 34-35). The Court further noted that arrest and detention warrants are usually issued as protective measures or when there is a risk the accused will not appear; however, these justifications office 365 database were not engaged in the case of a group of prominent individuals whose addresses were well known. Additionally, the Court placed emphasis on the presumption of innocence the accused benefit from whilst investigations are ongoing (Order, paras 36-37). The Court concluded that this was a situation where there was a serious risk of the applicants being deprived of the enjoyment of their rights and whose unforeseeable consequences may cause them irreparable harm. It subsequently ordered a stay of the warrants pending its final decision on the merits. (Order, paras 38-39).
Almost immediately following the Court’s Order, Côte d’Ivoire withdrew its special declaration. In doing so, it cited the African Court’s “grave and intolerable actions”, which violate its sovereignty and “undermine the foundations of the rule of law by weakening its justice system”.
Implications of the decision
Côte d’Ivoire’s decision to withdraw its special declaration is a setback for those seeking accountability for human rights violations within the country. Despite an end to the mass violence and abuses that characterised the 2010-2011 post-election crisis, reports of human rights violations persist. A recent Universal Periodic Review submission by the Coalition of Ivorian Human Rights Defenders (CIDDH) and Swiss NGO CIVICUS, details the frequent intimidation and harassment of journalists, assaults on human rights defenders and the violent repression of peaceful protests within Côte d’Ivoire. Another recent report by Human Rights Watch, points to abuses by the national security forces, improper Executive influence over elections and a heavily politicised judiciary, which impedes access to justice. In a country where human rights violations are so prevalent, and where the courts are neither impartial nor independent, the power to submit complaints directly to the African Court has become an increasingly relied on avenue of redress for individuals and the NGOs. The extinguishment of this right is consequently a blow for these groups.