“We respect our international commitments, but we also appreciate our sovereignty” was the explanation given by the government’s spokesman, Sidi Toure, following Ivory Coast’s decision on 29th April 2020 to pull out of the African Human Rights and People’s Court.

 Ivory Coast’s withdrawal from the Court has pushed observers to question what the impact of the decision on human rights in the country will be, in a pre-election period that many already feared represented a heightened threat to dissidents.

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE 

 The government’s decision to withdraw came a week after the Court itself ordered Ivory Coast to suspend the arrest warrant for presidential candidate Guillaume Soro and to release 19 of his supporters, who have been imprisoned for several months, while it weighed arguments on whether Soro’s rights had been violated.

 Soro, a rebel leader and prime minister, had also been accused of plotting a coup against President Alassane Ouattara, who is due to leave office later this year. Soro’s lawyers claim that the accusations were devised to rule him out of running in the nation’s October presidential election. 

The African Human Rights and People’s Court ruled unanimously for the suspension of his arrest, emphasising that those accused should benefit from the presumption of innocence.

In defiance, the Ivorian government conducted a one-day trial in absentia. On charges of money laundering and embezzlement Soro was sentenced to 20 years in jail and stripped of his civic rights for 7 years. Soro himself responded to the sentence, stating “I consider this verdict to be a non-event.” He went on to re-confirm his presidential candidacy and asked his supporters to remain mobilized.

“A POLITICAL DECISION”

The country’s exit from the Court means it is no longer possible for NGOs and private individuals to refer directly to the Court in cases involving the government. Alice Banens, Amnesty International’s Africa Legal Adviser, brandished this “a step backwards for human rights in Cote d’Ivoire.”

The Ivory Coast Foreign Minister, Ally Coulibaly, claimed the African Human Rights and People’s Court had made “a political decision” in their suspension order of Soro’s arrest warrant. He described its order as conferring “a certain criminal immunity on someone who wants to be a candidate in the next elections.” The Foreign Minister went onto claim that that the Court’s order had undermined the government’s national sovereignty and the rule of law, actions he described as “serious and intolerable.”

PRE-ELECTION ESCALATION

Ivory Coast’s 2010 election, in which opposition refused to accept the result, marked the trigger for a civil war responsible for 3,000 deaths and the displacement of 500,000 people. While the unrest ended in 2011, the months ahead, in advance of the presidential election, are regarded by many as critical to the country’s future. 

The Court, which came into force in 2004, was created with one mandate: to enhance the protective directive of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights by strengthening the human rights protection system in Africa and ensuring respect for and compliance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as international human rights instruments, through judicial decisions.

Thirty states, including Ivory Coast, had ratified the protocol that the Court may receive complaints and applications submitted to it by the African Commission of Human and Peoples' Rights, State parties to the Protocol or African Intergovernmental Organizations. Nine members have made a declaration recognising the Court’s competence to receive cases from NGOs and individuals. Its decisions are final and binding on state parties to the Protocol.

Yet, in light of the Ivoran government’s decision to withdraw, the African Human Rights and People’s Court has lost this critical power of oversight regarding Ivory Coast’s adherence to its human rights obligations. 

Rebecca is due to begin the GDL in September, having graduated with a BA in History from Durham University. In the intervening years, she worked at a global asset management firm where, alongside her role, she helped lead their charitable efforts in the UK. Following her legal studies, she hopes to pursue a career at the Bar.

LinkedIn