CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND OTHERS V. UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (APPLICATION NO. 019/2018) [2025] AfCHPR 4 (5 FEBRUARY 2025)

INTRODUCTION

The Applicants in this matter are the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria (CHR); the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), and the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC). These three organizations, hereinafter referred to as ”the applicants,” brought claims against the United Republic of Tanzania, the Respondent in this matter, alleging violations of several rights of Persons with Albinism (PWA) before the African Court on Human and People’s Rights (AfCHPR). The court was the first instance, as the applicants had not previously approached local courts.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Respondent state has one of the highest rates of violence against PWA, with attacks rooted in harmful tribal beliefs that; PWA do not die, sexual relations with women with albinism cure AIDS, and their body parts bring fortune. Historically, PWA have faced persecution, including killings and mutilations, based on superstition portraying them as curses, ghosts or sources of magical wealth. PWA are often targeted while alive or after death, with body parts stolen for witchcraft. Between 2000 and June 2016, 76 PWA were killed, and 69 survived attacks or kidnappings in the Respondent State. Given the minority status of PWA, these attacks are particularly severe and a serious threat to their existence. Children are the primary targets, making up nearly 70% of the victims. PWA also suffer from poverty and health risks due to various socio-economic restrictions.

LEGAL ISSUES

The court was called upon to determine the following issues:

1. Jurisdiction and admissibility.
2. Merits: Violations of substantive rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right:
3. Right to life (Article 4)
4. Right to dignity and protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.(Article 5)
5. Right to non-discrimination (Article 2)
6. The prohibition of sale, trafficking and abduction of children (Article 18(3), read with the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child – ACRWC)
7. Right to an effective remedy (Article 7)
8. General obligation to give effect to Charter rights (Article 1).
9. Legislative Framework.
10. Reparations and orders.                               

ARGUMENTS

APPLICANTS’ ARGUMENTS

Jurisdiction:

The applicants submit that the court has appropriate jurisdiction to hear the matter. Regarding the temporal jurisdiction which was contentious before the court, the applicant asserts that the court has temporal jurisdiction because the violations continued after the ratification of the protocol to the African court. The applicants argue that although some of the violations began in 2000 (before the respondent  became a party to the protocol), the effects continued beyond 2006 and new violations arose after that. The case of Christopher Mtikila v. Tanzania among others was cited to support their position. 

Admissibility

The applicants argue that they have met the admissibility conditions outlined in Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 50 of the Court’s Rules. On the contentious issues regarding admissibility, they assert that: The victims are not able to seize domestic courts due to fear of reprisals and lack of effective remedies; that the application is not based on new reports alone, but also on documented incidents and patterns of attacks, verified by both government and international sources, and lastly, that the case was filed within a reasonable time, considering the ongoing nature of the violations and systemic failure of domestic remedies.

Merits

On the alleged violations, the applicants submit as follows relying heavily on the African Charter, as well as other international human rights instruments;

1. Right to Non-discrimination: That PWA face deep-rooted stigma, myths, and systemic discrimination from birth, affecting access to several socio-economic benefits, which violates Article 2 of the Charter.
2. Right to life: Systematic killings and attacks against PWA, with the State failing its obligation to prevent, investigate, or punish perpetrators violates Article 4 of the Charter.
3. Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman Treatment: Mutilations and cruel treatment of PWA amount to torture, as specified in international human rights instruments.
4. Right to dignity: The discrimination and societal rejection stripped PWA of dignity and exposed them to indignity and psychological harm.
5. Right to an Effective Remedy: The state failed to provide judicial redress and many cases of attacks were abandoned without justice.
6. Rights and Welfare of the child: Children with albinism were kidnapped, trafficked and targeted due to their vulnerability, and the State failed to prevent or address this.
7. The state failed to take legislative, administrative and judicial measures to protect the rights of PWA.

Reparations

The applicants prayed the court to make order for; a compensation and advocacy fund, moral damages for suffering, and legal, social, and policy reforms to protect PWA.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

Jurisdiction

The respondent contends that the court lacked temporal jurisdiction because the alleged violation began in 2000, before it became party to the protocol in 2006. Relying on the principle of non-retroactivity, which states the court cannot entertain claims based on events before ratification. It argues that the court should distinguish the case of Mtikila from their case because the former focused on personal jurisdiction, not temporal jurisdiction. It also submits that the lack of details such as victim’s names and dates, undermines the temporal jurisdiction claim.

Admissibility

The respondent contends the admissibility on the grounds that:

1. The applicant failed to exhaust local remedies or demonstrate the unavailability of them.
2. The application is too general, lacking names of victims, and based largely on media and NGO reports rather than concrete evidence and;
3. The application was not filed within reasonable time after the violations occurred.

Merits

In response to these allegations leveled against it, the respondent state;

1. Deny violating any of these rights.
2. Argue that it had enacted laws and put in place policies and other constitutional protections for these rights.
3. Assert that there were adequate enforcement mechanisms present in the state, legal aid schemes and special courts to address these violations in the state.

Reparations: The State opposed all claims, calling them baseless and prayed the court to dismiss them.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

Jurisdiction

The court reiterates its previous jurisprudence that it only has jurisdiction from the date a state ratifies the protocol, except in cases of continuing violations. The court found that the violations cited spanned 2000-2016, with both parties acknowledging incidents after 2006. The court dismissed the objection of the respondent and affirmed the temporal jurisdiction. It was also satisfied that it has personal, material and territorial jurisdiction before it proceeding on the matter.

Admissibility

In holding that the matter is admissible before it, the court analyzed the issue using Article 56 of the African charter and Rule 50 of the rules. The court found that:

1. The application provides sufficient clarity and detail, even if not all victims were named, given the widespread and systemic nature of the violations.
2. Domestic remedies fall short of the requirements of availability, effectiveness and sufficiency, particularly due to the state’s failure to PWA, lack of trust and fear of reprisal within the justice system, and evidence from the public records and reports showing that most perpetrators were not prosecuted.
3. The application was filed within reasonable time, especially considering, the continuing nature of the violations and the need to pull sufficient evidence for a group-based claim.
4. That the claim is not based solely on new media sources, in the presence of reliable documentation.

Merits

The court analyzed the issues as follows:

Right to Non-Discrimination

The court finds a violation of Article 2 of the Charter which prohibits discrimination on grounds including “birth or other status”. It emphasizes that discrimination includes structural inequality and the social exclusion of PWA. In the instant case, despite legal and policy frameworks, the stigma and stereotypes still persist, showing insufficient efforts to dismantle discriminatory practices.

Right to life

The court finds a violation of Article 4 of the charter which protects the right of life and prohibit arbitrary deprivation. According to General Comment No. 3 (ACHPR) the state had an obligation to prevent, investigate, and punish killings, even by non-state actors. In this case, the respondent state failed to prevent killings and mutilations of PWA, with low conviction rate of 5 out of 76 murders prosecuted. The court finds a failure of due diligence.

Prohibition of Torture & Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

The court relies on the definition of torture from Article 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) and reaffirms the state’s failure to prevent known abuse. The prolonged suffering and dehumanization based on PWA’s identity constituted torture and cruel treatment. The court finds there was a violation of Article 5 of the Charter.

Right to Dignity:

The court references its own jurisprudence in Makungu v. Tanzania among others, reiterating that dignity was defined as the core of all human rights, inviolable regardless of identity or status. The failure of the Respondent state to respond to the ritual killings and the treatment meted on PWA reinforces systemic dehumanization, the court found that Article 5 of the charter was violated

Right to an Effective Remedy

The court recognizes that a remedy must be available, accessible and effective, relying on the provisions of Article 7 and 1 of the charter. The court finds insufficient evidence of justice for PWA. However, since there was no blanket denial to access to remedies, the court did not establish a violation.

Rights and Welfare of the Child

The court relies on the Article 29 of the Children’s Charter (ACRWC) which prohibits abduction, sale and trafficking of children, it highlights that state’s complicity and ineffectiveness in addressing the cases of the child victims were evident. Therefore the said article was violated.

Obligation to Give Effect to Rights

The court establishes a violation of Article 1 of the charter by the state’s failure to take legislative and other measures to give effect to Charter rights. Though laws existed, the court finds that practical implementation and enforcement was inadequate.

Reparations

The court held that reparations aim to restore victims as fully as possible. It recognized restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition as valid forms. It emphasized the need for proof of harm, especially for financial loss, while moral harm may be compensated at the court’s discretion. The court also accepted that groups, not just individuals, can be victims.

DECISION

The court agrees PWA suffered material and moral harm in the respondent state. It ordered the creation of a compensation fund, with TZS 10 million for moral damages, and committed to reviewing non-financial reforms.

Other orders made by the court include that the respondent state:

1. Amend laws to criminalize violence against PWA and clarify witchcraft laws.
2. Improve education, healthcare, and shelter for PWA within two years.
3. Launch a two-year public awareness campaign and train justice officials.
4. Ensure protection, support, and development of children with albinism.
5. Report Progress to the court within two years.

SIGNIFICANCE

• This landmark judgement highlights he importance of state responsibility in protecting vulnerable populations
• It sets a precedent for addressing systemic discrimination and violence against PWA.
• This is a milestone in African human rights jurisprudence, reinforcing the African Union’s efforts to combat discrimination against PWA and setting a model for other countries to follow.
• This judgement reinforces states obligation to act. By imposing a clear timeline and reporting requirements, the courts ensures accountability and follow through.

CONCLUSION

This case clarifies the African court’s position on the discrimination that has been neglected for a while, that is discrimination against PWA. This decision serves as a warning and a guide to other countries that may have been neglecting their duty to prevent and punish acts perpetrated against minority groups, not limited to persons with disabilities. Consequently, States will now look inward to ensure compliance with the African Charter and other international human rights treaties, lest they be found wanting in their implementation.

REFERENCE(S)

Centre of Human Rights and others v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application no. 019/2018) [2025] AfCHPR 4 (5 February 2025)

Christopher Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 011/2011) [2011] AfCHPR 53 (30 September 2011)

Makungu v United Republic of Tanzania (Application 6 of 2016) [2022] AfCHPR 15 (23 June 2022)