Aduayom

v.
Togo,
Comm.
422/1990,
423/1990
CCPR/C/51/D/422/1990, 423/1990 and 424/1990 (HRC 1994)

&

424/1990,

U.N.

Doc.

FACTS
-

Aduayom, a teacher at the University of Benin, Diasso, a teacher at the University of

Benin, and Dobou, an inspector in the ministry of Postal and Telecommunications, all
claim to be victims of violations of articles 9 and 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights by Togo. At separate instances, they were arrested and
charged with the offence of lse-majest. The charges against them have been
droppedhave unsuccessfully requested reinstatement in their previous posts.
The authors also state that they submitted their respective cases to the National
Commission on Human Rights, an organ they claim was set up by the State party for
the purpose of investigating human rights violations. The Commission, however, did
not examine their complaints and simply passed their files on to the Administrative
Chamber of the Court of Appeal.
The State party argues that the authors have not exhausted domestic remedies, but
the authors argue that the proceedings before the Administrative Chamber of the
Court of Appeal are wholly ineffective.

ISSUE
-

Whether or not the communications are admissible under the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant

DECISION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

-

Yes. They are admissible.

Although the Committee notes that the authors' arrest and detention
occurred prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for Togo (30
June 1988), the alleged violations had continuing effects even after the entry
into force of the Optional Protocol for Togo. These continuing effects include
the nonpayment of salary arrears and other forms of compensation, which
can be seen as an affirmation of the previous allegations allegedly committed
by the State party. The Committee concludes therefore that it is not
precluded ratione temporis to consider the communications and considers
that they may raise issues under articles 9, paragraph 5, 19 and 25(c) of the
Covenant.
Also, the Committee does not consider the application before the
Administrative Chamber of the Court of Appeal as an available and effective
remedy within the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2(b) of the Optional
Protocol, which the authors should still pursue. Hence, there was no failure to
exhaust domestic remedies.