Aduayom v. Togo, Comm. 422/1990, 423/1990 & 424/1990, U.N. Doc.

CCPR/C/51/D/422/1990, 423/1990
and 424/1990 (HRC 1994)

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 lèse-majesté. 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.