|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 2025 |
|
|
Une requête peut être radiée lorsqu'un demandeur ne poursuit pas l'affaire et ne peut être localisé.
Procédure civile – Radiation – Règle 65(1)(b) et (c) – Défaut de poursuivre la requête – Demandeur introuvable – Pouvoir discrétionnaire de radier; réintégration possible sur démonstration d'un motif valable (Règle 65(3)).
|
9 October 2025 |
| September 2025 |
|
|
La Cour rouvre les écritures pour admettre la soumission de l'État déposée après la clôture concernant la nouvelle loi électorale.
Procédure civile — Réouverture des écritures après clôture — Règles 46(3) et 46(4) — Pouvoirs inhérents en vertu de la Règle 90 — Admission de soumissions postérieures à la clôture des écritures — Prise en compte d'une législation nationale postérieure pertinente au litige.
|
15 September 2025 |
| August 2025 |
|
|
La Cour a exercé son pouvoir discrétionnaire pour rouvrir les écritures et autoriser des preuves supplémentaires dans une affaire complexe relative aux droits électoraux.
Procédure – Réouverture des écritures – Règle 46(3) et pouvoir inhérent en vertu de la Règle 90 – Admission de preuves supplémentaires – Droits électoraux – Intérêt de la justice – Clôture des écritures – Rejet de la demande d'une session extraordinaire accélérée.
|
5 August 2025 |
| June 2025 |
|
|
La Cour peut‑elle connaître de prétentions en matière de droits de l'homme découlant du soutien allégué d'un État à un groupe armé à l'étranger ?
Compétence entre États ; compétence matérielle sans exigence d'un différend de type CIJ préalable ; application exterritoriale des obligations en matière de droits de l'homme en cas de conflit armé internationalisé ; distinction entre les exigences procédurales d'autres instruments régionaux et le Règlement de cette Cour ; levée de l'épuisement des voies internes en contexte de violations massives et systémiques ; recevabilité malgré procédures parallèles.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
La radiation de la liste électorale fondée sur une condamnation définitive n'a pas porté atteinte aux droits de participation ni à la présomption d'innocence.
Droit électoral – Radiation de la liste électorale fondée sur une condamnation in absentia – Présomption d'innocence – Caractère définitif attesté par un certificat de non-opposition – Recevabilité et compétence malgré le retrait de la déclaration au titre de l'article 34(6) – Défaut de l'État intimé.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
La Cour conclut que la peine de mort obligatoire est arbitraire et que la pendaison est dégradante ; elle ordonne la révocation, des réformes législatives et une nouvelle audience.
Droits de l'homme — Compétence de la Cour africaine sur des prétentions relevant du droit pénal alléguant des violations de la Charte ; recevabilité — épuisement des voies de recours et délai de saisine ; procès équitable — rôle et impartialité des assesseurs ; peine de mort — caractère arbitraire de la peine obligatoire (violation du droit à la vie) ; la pendaison comme mode d'exécution porte atteinte à la dignité et viole l'interdiction des châtiments cruels, inhumains ou dégradants.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Requête déclarée irrecevable pour défaut d'épuisement des recours internes malgré la compétence de la Cour et le défaut du défendeur.
Droits de l'homme — Admissibilité — Épuisement des recours internes — Le statut d'immigrant interdit ne rend pas ipso facto les recours internes indisponibles — Jugement par défaut — Défaut de l'État de répondre après avoir été dûment signifié.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
La Cour constate une violation du droit à une audience publique mais aucune violation du droit de propriété ni du droit à un procès équitable au fond ; elle accorde des dommages moraux et ordonne la publication.
Compétence en matière de droits de l'homme ; recevabilité ; épuisement des voies de recours internes ; administration publique de la justice ; droit à une audience publique ; limites du contrôle des constatations de fait et de droit des juridictions nationales ; réparations (dommages moraux, publication, rapport).
|
26 June 2025 |
|
La Cour a constaté des brutalités policières, une assistance juridique inefficace, un retard déraisonnable et que la peine de mort obligatoire violait des droits fondamentaux.
Compétence et recevabilité ; article 5 dignité — brutalités policières et devoir d'enquête de l'État ; article 7 procès équitable — représentation juridique effective et retard déraisonnable ; article 4 droit à la vie — peine de mort obligatoire ; exécution par pendaison — cruelle, inhumaine ou dégradante ; réparations — indemnisation, réforme législative, nouvelle audience, publication et rapports.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Demande de mesures provisoires rejetée pour absence de gravité extrême, d'urgence et de préjudice irréparable.
Mesures provisoires – exigences de gravité extrême, d'urgence et de préjudice irréparable – charge de la preuve incombant au requérant pour établir l'urgence et le préjudice irréparable – le délai affaiblit l'urgence – compétence prima facie en vertu de l'article 3(1) du Protocole et de la Déclaration visée à l'article 34(6).
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Requête déclarée irrecevable pour défaut d'épuisement des recours internes ; la Cour a conservé sa compétence malgré le retrait de l'État intimé.
Compétence – déclaration prévue à l'article 34(6) et retrait – retrait non rétroactif ; Jugement par défaut – règle 63(1) ; Recevabilité – épuisement des recours internes (article 56 de la Charte africaine ; règle 50(2)) ; Prématurité de la requête lorsque des poursuites et des appels internes sont pendants ; Mesures provisoires antérieurement ordonnées.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Savoir si des décisions administratives et judiciaires refusant la promotion de policiers ont violé le droit à l'égalité et le droit d'être entendu.
Égalité devant la loi – Non‑discrimination – charge de la preuve; Critères administratifs de promotion – conditions temporelles d'éligibilité; Contrôle judiciaire et revirement de jurisprudence – légitimité de l'évolution de la jurisprudence des tribunaux; Droit d'être entendu – délais procéduraux, signification et voies d'appel; Recevabilité – épuisement des voies de recours internes et délai raisonnable.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Demande de mesures conservatoires rejetée parce que ces mesures porteraient atteinte au fond malgré l'existence d'une juridiction prima facie.
Mesures conservatoires – Juridiction prima facie en vertu du Protocole – Exigences de gravité extrême, d'urgence et de préjudice irréparable – Les mesures conservatoires ne doivent pas préjuger du fond – Demandes identiques aux réparations substantielles ; questions de reconnaissance d'une organisation régionale (WAEMU).
|
26 June 2025 |
|
La Cour affirme sa compétence mais déclare la requête irrecevable pour défaut d'épuisement des recours constitutionnels internes.
Compétence — compétence matérielle pour apprécier la conformité des lois nationales et des actes judiciaires à la Charte africaine ; admissibilité — manquement à l'épuisement des voies de recours internes effectives (Cour constitutionnelle nationale) ; réparations — la Cour peut ordonner l'abrogation d'une loi comme réparation appropriée ; exceptions préliminaires — l'abus de procédure est renvoyé au fond ; l'anonymat et les dépôts multiples ne privent pas ipso facto de la qualité pour agir.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
Requête rejetée comme irrecevable pour défaut d'épuisement des recours internes effectifs avant le dépôt.
Droit administratif – Arrêté interministériel restreignant la délivrance de documents officiels – Recevabilité – Épuisement des voies de recours internes – Disponibilité et efficacité de la Cour constitutionnelle – Temporalité : les recours appréciés à la date du dépôt – Présomption d'indépendance judiciaire.
|
26 June 2025 |
|
La Cour a radié des défendeurs hors de sa compétence et une ONG dépourvue du statut d'observateur, et a poursuivi uniquement à l'encontre des États ayant déposé des déclarations au titre de l'article 34(6).
Compétence — déclarations au titre de l'article 34(6) — la compétence personnelle est limitée aux États ayant ratifié le Protocole et déposé des déclarations ; qualité pour agir des ONG — le statut d'observateur auprès de la Commission africaine est requis ; règle 90 — pouvoir implicite de la Cour de radier des parties non qualifiées et de redesigner des requêtes.
|
17 June 2025 |
|
La Cour a exercé son pouvoir discrétionnaire pour rouvrir les écritures, a déclaré la Réponse tardive dûment déposée et a accordé au requérant trente jours pour répondre.
Procédure — Réouverture des écritures — Pouvoir discrétionnaire en vertu des Règles 46(3) et 90 — Prorogation du délai de dépôt de la Réponse — Signification et réplique sous 30 jours — Le retrait de la Déclaration visée à l'Article 34(6) n'affecte pas les affaires pendantes.
|
2 June 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
La Cour a rouvert les écritures et ordonné une réponse sous sept jours dans le cadre d'une contestation des restrictions de vote visant les prisonniers et la diaspora.
Droit procédural — Réouverture des écritures (Règle 46(3)) ; pouvoirs inhérents de la Cour (Règle 90) ; réponses par défaut (Règle 63) ; participation politique — droits de vote des prisonniers, des personnes condamnées à mort et de la diaspora ; effet du retrait de la Déclaration au titre de l'Article 34(6) sur les affaires pendantes.
|
20 May 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Court exercised Rule 46(3) and Rule 90 to reopen pleadings and admitted RFK and IHRDA as amici curiae.
* Procedural law – Reopening pleadings – Rule 46(3) – Court’s discretion to reopen pleadings in the interest of justice.
* Procedural law – Inherent powers – Rule 90 – Court may adopt procedures necessary to meet the ends of justice.
* Amicus curiae – Admissibility and relevance of RFK and IHRDA submissions in electoral rights litigation.
* Electoral law – Allegations of systemic electoral malpractices and broader public interest in adjudication.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims against the AU/AUC because they are not State Parties to the Protocol.
* Jurisdiction – Limits of the African Court’s jurisdiction – Applications must be filed against State Parties to the Protocol; international organisations not party to the Protocol fall outside jurisdiction.
* Procedural law – Preliminary examination of jurisdiction under Article 3, Article 34(6) of the Protocol and Rule 49(1) of the Rules.
* Precedent – Falana v. African Union applied: international organisations cannot be bound by a treaty to which they are not party.
|
12 February 2025 |
|
Failure to provide free legal aid breached the right to defence; conviction upheld; moral damages and legislative reform ordered.
Human rights – Fair trial – Right to defence and free legal assistance; Court jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal, territorial upheld; Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time; Evidence review – no manifest error in domestic proceedings; Reparations – moral damages awarded; Legislative reform – Legal Aid Act 2017 to be amended.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Failure to pursue the available cassation remedy rendered the fair-trial application inadmissible.
Human rights – Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – Cassation as available and effective remedy in Côte d’Ivoire – Lack of counsel/ignorance not excusing non-exhaustion – Jurisdiction confirmed.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust available domestic remedies despite Court’s jurisdiction.
Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies — Availability of remedies under domestic Code of Criminal Procedure allowing injured party to request investigation or bring civil action — Application premature; Material jurisdiction — Alleged violations fall within the African Charter and relevant international instruments.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
State violated multiple Charter rights of persons with albinism by failing to prevent attacks, investigate, prosecute and adopt protective measures.
Human rights — Persons with albinism — State duty of due diligence to prevent, investigate and prosecute attacks — Non‑discrimination, right to life, prohibition of torture, children’s rights, health and education — NGOs’ standing and exhaustion of local remedies — Reparations and structural measures ordered.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Mandatory death sentence and hanging violate Articles 4 and 5; Court orders vacatur of mandatory death sentence, new sentencing hearing, and reforms.
Criminal law and human rights – jurisdiction of the African Court over domestic convictions – admissibility: exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time – mandatory death penalty violates right to life (Article 4) – hanging as method of execution violates inherent dignity (Article 5) – remedies: annulment of mandatory death sentence, new sentencing hearing, repeal of mandatory death penalty and hanging, moral damages.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies despite Respondent's default; Court retained jurisdiction.
* Default judgment – Rule 63(1) – Conditions for judgment by default satisfied where State duly served but failed to respond.
* Jurisdiction – Court confirmed material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction under Protocol and Charter.
* Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies required; first-instance decisions appealable under domestic law.
* Procedural law – In limine litis dismissal does not automatically negate availability of appeal absent proof.
|
5 February 2025 |
|
Court affirms jurisdiction over alleged Charter violations but declares application inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
Jurisdiction – material jurisdiction over alleged Charter violations even when underlying dispute arises from contract with a state-owned entity; Limits of Court’s role – not an appellate court but may assess conformity of national proceedings with human-rights standards; Admissibility – requirement to exhaust local remedies; unduly prolonged domestic proceedings must be demonstrated with evidence; availability of Constitutional Court remedy; claims unsupported by domestic proceedings are inadmissible.
|
5 February 2025 |
| November 2024 |
|
|
Court exercised its discretion to reopen pleadings and ordered the State to file its Response within 30 days.
* Human rights procedure – reopening of pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and inherent power under Rule 90 – extension of time to file Response. * Jurisdiction – effect of State’s withdrawal of Article 34(6) declaration on pending and newly filed cases before withdrawal’s effective date.
|
29 November 2024 |
|
Request for provisional measures dismissed for failure to show extreme gravity, urgency and irreparable harm.
* Provisional measures – requirements of extreme gravity, urgency and prevention of irreparable harm under Article 27(2) of the Protocol.
* Prima facie jurisdiction – Protocol and ICCPR ratification and Article 34(6) declaration.
* Burden of proof – applicant must provide clear evidence of urgency and irreparable harm.
* Relevance of pending domestic remedies – national proceedings may obviate need for provisional relief; risk of prejudging merits.
|
20 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death sentences and hanging breach the rights to life and dignity; fair-trial challenge was dismissed.
• Human rights — Criminal procedure — Fair trial (Article 7): assessment of witness inconsistencies and standard of proof. • Human rights — Right to life (Article 4): mandatory death penalty violates judicial discretion requirement. • Human rights — Dignity (Article 5): execution by hanging constitutes degrading treatment. • Remedies — Legislative reform, vacatur and resentencing, publication and reporting obligations.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Applicant’s fair-trial complaints dismissed; Court finds no violations and denies reparations.
* Human rights – Fair trial – Allegations of denial of hearing, conviction on unreliable evidence, inability to challenge evidence, breach of presumption of innocence, improper amendment of charges, and absence of reasoned judgment – Assessment of domestic proceedings and appellate review. * Procedure – Default judgment against State for failure to respond; conditions for suo motu default satisfied. * Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time to file.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Application alleging electoral participation rights violations inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies.
Electoral law amendments; right to participate in elections; admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies; default proceedings for non-responsive State; jurisdiction (material, personal, temporal, territorial).
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Claim of gender inequality in surname law rendered moot after domestic amendment; Court affirms jurisdiction and admissibility.
• Human rights — Equality between men and women — Surname transmission — Whether domestic law reserving surname choice to father violates African Charter, Maputo Protocol, ICCPR and CEDAW.
• Jurisdiction — Material, personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction of African Court despite prior Constitutional Court ruling and State’s withdrawal of Article 34(6) Declaration.
• Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies and timeliness.
• Mootness — Effect of domestic legislative amendment on international adjudication and remedies.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death sentences and execution by hanging violate the rights to life and dignity; domestic conviction not found unfair.
Criminal law – fair trial and evaluation of circumstantial evidence; Human rights – mandatory death penalty violates right to life (Article 4); Methods of execution – hanging violates dignity and prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 5); Reparations – moral damages and structural remedies; Default judgment for non-response by State.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violated the applicant’s rights to life and dignity; Court orders sentence vacated and legal reform.
• Jurisdiction — Court may assess conformity of domestic criminal proceedings with the African Charter and order remedies including vacatur of sentence and release.
• Admissibility — Exhaustion of local remedies satisfied where appeal to Court of Appeal was pursued; filing within reasonable time by incarcerated lay applicant.
• Evidence — Circumstantial and DNA evidence and presumption of death may support conviction if corroborated; international court cautious about re-evaluating factual findings absent manifest injustice.
• Death penalty — Mandatory imposition violates Article 4 (right to life) by denying sentencing discretion; execution by hanging violates Article 5 (dignity).
• Remedies — Individual relief (vacate mandatory death sentence, remove from death row, rehearing on sentencing) and systemic orders (repeal mandatory death provision, abolish hanging, publication and reporting).
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Failure to exhaust available domestic remedy (cour de cassation) renders applicant's fair-trial claims inadmissible.
• Jurisdiction – material, personal (Article 34(6) Declaration), temporal and territorial – affirmed. • Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies required; appeal to Cour de cassation deemed available and effective. • Procedural law – lack of counsel, ignorance of remedies or unsubstantiated claims of ineffectiveness do not excuse non-exhaustion. • Application dismissed as inadmissible; costs borne by each party.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
The Court found no violation of the right to be heard, equal protection, or dignity and dismissed reparations claims.
* Jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal and territorial – Court may order remedies including release if violation established.
* Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and reasonable time – incarcerated, self-represented applicant.
* Fair trial – right to have cause heard (Article 7(1)) – assessment of witness credibility and reliance on corroborating prosecution testimony.
* Non-discrimination – equal protection (Article 3(2)) – burden on applicant to substantiate claim.
* Human dignity (Article 5) – allegation of torture/inhuman treatment must be substantiated with evidence.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Mandatory death penalty and hanging violate the Charter; confession/torture claims unproven; moral damages awarded.
Human rights — Jurisdiction of the Court — Admissibility (exhaustion of local remedies; reasonable time) — Evidence and fair trial — Alleged torture — Mandatory death penalty and method of execution (hanging) — Article 1 obligations — Reparations and structural remedies.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Adoption without referendum did not breach self-determination; executive measures unlawfully undermined judicial and legislative independence.
* Human rights – Peoples’ right to self-determination – Whether adoption of a constitution without referendum violates Article 20 of the African Charter; * Judicial independence – Article 26 – Failure to operationalise Constitutional Court; abolition/replacement of review and judicial governance bodies; executive control over judges’ discipline and dismissal; * Separation of powers – Suspension/dissolution of legislature and assumption of decree-based legislative power by executive; * Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies waived where constitutional review bodies unavailable; * Remedies – Court orders operationalisation of Constitutional Court, repeal of Decree-Law 2022-11, reinstatement of High Judicial Council, periodic reporting.
|
13 November 2024 |
|
Court grants a 90‑day adjournment for State to file implementation report; eviction allegations to be heard later.
Compliance hearing – adjournment request – Court’s power under Rules 54(6) and 90 – 90‑day deadline to file implementation report – allegation of continuing evictions to be determined at future hearing – costs reserved.
|
12 November 2024 |
| October 2024 |
|
|
Court ordered suspension of detention to secure urgent specialised medical treatment and prevent irreparable harm.
Provisional measures – Prima facie jurisdiction under the Protocol, African Charter and ICCPR – Extreme gravity, urgency and risk of irreparable harm – Right to health and protection from torture – Suspension of detention to obtain specialised medical treatment – Short reporting deadline.
|
29 October 2024 |
|
Court reopens pleadings and deems State’s late Response filed, ordering Applicant to reply within thirty days.
* Procedural law – Reopening pleadings – Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) and Rule 90 inherent powers – Pleadings filed out of time under Rule 45(1).
* Human rights procedure – Admissibility of late Responses in cases raising fair trial and equality rights where interests of justice warrant reopening.
* Remedies – Direction to serve deemed-filed Response and allow Applicant thirty days to reply.
|
28 October 2024 |
|
The Court dismissed an Ogiek community application for lack of personal jurisdiction because the State had not deposited the Article 34(6) declaration.
* Jurisdiction – personal jurisdiction – Article 34(6) declaration required for individuals to file directly – absence of declaration bars Court’s jurisdiction.
* Preliminary examination – Rule 49(1) – Court must assess jurisdiction before addressing merits.
* Res judicata/continuation – already-determined Application No. 006/2012 cannot serve as a basis to avoid fresh jurisdictional requirements.
|
16 October 2024 |
| September 2024 |
|
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies; Court retains jurisdiction and denies provisional measures.
Jurisdiction – material jurisdiction upheld despite State sovereignty objections; Exhaustion of local remedies – pending cassation appeal at filing rendered application inadmissible; Provisional measures – denied after inadmissibility; Personal, temporal and territorial jurisdiction affirmed; Costs – each party to bear own costs.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
The respondent violated applicants’ fair-trial, dignity and life rights by consular, interpreter, torture and mandatory-death-penalty failures.
Consular rights – failure to inform detained foreign nationals; Right to interpreter – failure to provide during arrest, interrogation and trial; Right to a trial within reasonable time – excessive pre-trial detention; Police brutality and failure to investigate – prohibition of torture; Death penalty – mandatory sentencing violates right to life; Method of execution (hanging) and death-row phenomenon – cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; Prison conditions – violation of dignity; Reparations – moral damages, vacatur of sentence, legislative and procedural reforms.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Application declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust the domestic cassation remedy; Court affirms its jurisdiction.
* Human rights – Admissibility – Exhaustion of local remedies – cassation appeal as an available, effective and satisfactory remedy in Burkina Faso.
* Jurisdiction – African Court – material, personal (Article 34(6) declaration), temporal and territorial jurisdiction affirmed.
* Admissibility – undue prolongation exception not established; failure to exhaust cassation renders Application inadmissible.
* Costs – each party to bear own costs.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Failure to provide free legal assistance in serious criminal proceedings violated the applicant's right to a fair trial.
* Jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal and territorial – Court empowered to examine alleged Charter violations.
* Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies – appeal and review to apex court sufficient; reasonable time for filing.
* Criminal procedure – right to fair trial – assessment of identification evidence and right to be heard.
* Right to defence – obligation to provide free legal assistance at trial and appellate stages for indigent accused facing serious penalties.
* Reparations – proof required for material loss; moral damages awarded for violation of right to legal assistance.
* Costs and implementation – each party bears own costs; State to report on implementation.
|
3 September 2024 |
|
Court found jurisdiction, admitted only the complaint against the lawyers, but held no fair-trial violation and dismissed reparations.
• Jurisdiction – material, personal, temporal and territorial – application of Article 3 of the Protocol. • Admissibility – exhaustion of local remedies and unduly prolonged proceedings (Article 56 of the Charter; Rule 50). • Compatibility with AU Constitutive Act – Article 3(h) and admissibility requirements. • Timeliness – reasonableness of delay in filing (Article 56(6)). • Fair trial – scope of Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter read with Article 14 ICCPR; review of Constitutional Court’s declination of jurisdiction. • Reparations – claim dismissed where no violation found.
|
3 September 2024 |
| June 2024 |
|
|
Request to reopen pleadings dismissed for lack of new relevant facts; hearing request held superfluous.
Reopening pleadings — Court’s discretion under Rule 46(3) — Applicant must show new, relevant facts or evidence; matters irrelevant to original subject-matter are not grounds to reopen; request to hold hearing superfluous where reopening is refused.
|
6 June 2024 |
|
Mandatory death sentence violates right to life and hanging breaches dignity; remedy includes vacatur, rehearing and legislative repeal.
Human rights — Criminal procedure — Fair trial guarantees (reasonable time, right to defence, presumption of innocence, impartial tribunal) — Mandatory death penalty — Arbitrary deprivation of life where judicial discretion removed — Hanging as cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment — Reparations, vacatur of sentence, legislative reform and reporting obligations.
|
4 June 2024 |