THE AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
REPLY BY COMPLAINANTS TOREQUEST BY REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN FOR ADMISSIBILITY REVIEW
. On 5 August 2004 Republique du Cameroun through its Minister for External Relationsaddressed a note to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights requesting that theCommission reviews its decision declaring admissible for consideration on the meritscommunication 266/2003 (Dr Kevin Gumne & Others v. Republique du Cameroun). Thesubmission was transmitted to complainants.
. Republique du Cameroun feels able to have found some bases for its curious request in: (i) analleged violation by the Commission of r.119 of its rules of procedure; (ii) a claimed availability of review under other human rights systems; (iii) a claimed lack of
jurisdiction by the Commission to entertain communication 266/2003; (iv) a claimed incompatibility of thecommunication with the Constitutive Act of the African Union; (v) an alleged non-exhaustion of local remedies by the complainants; and (vi) a claimed resolution of the self-determination claimof the people of the Southern Cameroons.Here below is complainants’ point-by-point reply.
The alleged violation by the Commission of r.119 of its rules of procedure3
. Republique du Cameroun alleges that the Commission, in violation of rule 119 of its Rules of Procedure, failed to signify to it “the entire text giving the reasons for its decision” onadmissibility in communication 266/2003. The State party then asks the Commission to forwardto it “the full text of its decision” to enable it subsequently to prepare its defense on the merits as well as to enable it to understand the exact terms and scope of the admissibility decision.
. In the same breath as it alleges a violation of rule 119 Republique du Cameroun concedes that itis not the practice of the Commission to make the ‘text’ of its decision on admissibility available tothe concerned parties. The State party however avers that this practice is neither consistent with‘principles of justice’ nor with ‘the practice of other international human rights protective bodies’nor with ‘the Commission’s own rules of procedure’. The averment is specious.
Republique du Cameroun misreads of rule 119. That rule clearly ordains that if the Commissiondecides that a communication is admissible under the Charter, “its
text of therelevant documents
” shall be submitted to the State party concerned. Two things are to besubmitted, the decision declaring the communication admissible; and the text of the relevantdocuments. There is no requirement that when it declares a communication admissible the