PART A: Background to the African Regional Human Rights System 2. Protective Mandate Aggrieved parties may submit complaints alleging a violation(s) of Charter provisions to the African Commission. Both States46 and non-State entities, including individuals, may initiate cases and communications before the Commission.47 There is no additional protocol or declaration required to bring States Parties within the ambit of the Commission’s protective mandate. Article 30 of the Charter creates a compulsory monitoring mechanism in the form of the African Commission. The African Commission system is compulsory because States Parties to the Charter do not have the option of refusing to submit to it. One State Party to the African Charter may submit a complaint alleging that another State Party is in violation of the African Charter (‘inter-State communication’). So far, only one inter-State communication has been submitted to the Commission.48 Similar to the other regional human rights bodies, States tend not to use the inter-State complaint mechanism of the African Commission. The second possibility entails the submission of a complaint by any individual or NGO (‘individual communication’).49 The Commission is a quasi-judicial body. Its decisions do not carry the binding force of decisions from a court of law, ‘but have a persuasive authority akin to the opinions of the UN Human Rights Committee’ and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.50 However, the Commission, like the African Court, is the authoritative interpreter of the Charter. The Commission can make a finding or declaration as to a State’s compliance with the Charter and, in the case of a violation, address recommendations to the State Party to rectify those violations. Through the procedure for considering individual complaints, the Commission has developed significant jurisprudence interpreting the provisions of the Charter, including the right to be free from torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The Commission also has special investigative powers with respect to emergency situations or ‘special cases which reveal the existence of a series of serious and 46 47 48 49 50 Ibid., Articles 47-54; ACHPR, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, Comm. No. 227/99, 33rd Ordinary Session (29 May 2003). This case is the only inter-State communication so far registered by the ACHPR. African Charter, supra note 9, Articles 55-57. ACHPR, Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda, Comm. No. 227/99. Rules of Procedure, supra note 43, Rule 93(1). G. J. Naldi, “Future Trends in Human Rights in Africa: The Increased Role of the OAU”, in M. Evans and R. Murray (eds.), The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The System in Practice, 1986-2000, (2002) 1, 10. The UN Human Rights Committee is responsible for monitoring the compliance of States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). See ICCPR, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of December 1966, entered into force on 23 March 1976, Part IV. 27