The
Facts
2. According to the
court judgment of 17 December 1993, the complainant is guilty of trespass
in government buildings and acquisition of arms without authorization. He
was given a one-year suspended sentence. His sons were acquitted. The communication
does not include his address.
Procedure
3. The communication
is dated 20 July 1993. The state concerned was notified by mail on 6 January
1994.
4. The Commission
proceeded to examine the necessary facts in order to be sure that the United
Nations Human Rights Committee had not been seized of the same communication
and in order to try to know the address of the complainant.
5. The information
received revealed that this case had not been submitted to the United Nations
and that the complainant had died.
The
Law
Admissibility
6. Article 56.1 of
the Charter requires that communications presented pursuant to Article 55
indicate their author, even if the author has requested anonymity. The Commission
must be in communication with the author, to know his identity and status,
to be assured of his continued interest in the communication and to request
supplementary information if the case requires it. This is reflected in Rule
104 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission.
7. In the past, the
Commission made decisions on the admissibility in the case where the requirements
of Article 56.1 had not been fulfilled.
8. The Commission
closed communication 62/92 (Committee for the Defence of Human Rights in respect
of Ms Jennifer Madike /Nigeria) because two letters of reminder to the complainant
had gone unanswered. The Commission interpreted this prolonged silence on
the part of the complainant as “loss of contact with the complainant.”
9. In its decision
on communication 70/92 (Ibrahima Dioumessi, Sekou Kande, Ousmane Kaba /Guinea),
the Commission declared the communication inadmissible because the complainant
had included no address and the address could not be located through other
means.
10. In the present
case, the Commission has not had contact with the complainant since the case
was brought.
11. The Commission
has tried various means in an attempt to contact the complainant through other
individuals. The address of the complainant’s family reached the Commission
in the same letter as news of the complainant’s death. Efforts made to contact
the deceased’s legal successor have not borne results.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMISSION
Declares the communication inadmissible.
Taken
at the 20th session, Grand Bay, Mauritius, October 1996.