OMCT & Others v Rwanda

Parties (including notable third parties)

Complainants: Organisation mondiale contre la torture (World Organisation Against Torture), Association internationale des juristes democrats (International Association of Democratic Lawyers), International Commission of Jurists, Union interafricaine des droits de l’Homme (Inter-African Union for Human Rights); Respondent: Republic of Rwanda

---

Summary of Facts

Across communications submitted between 1989 and 1993, various international organisations alleged serious and massive human rights violations in Rwanda between 1989 and 1993 affecting Burundian refugees and Rwandan civilians, particularly members of the Tutsi ethnic group. In particular, Burundian refugees were expelled on national security grounds due to alleged ‘subversive activities’, without access to any defence before a competent court (paragraph 1). It was also alleged across various communications that arbitrary arrests, summary and extrajudicial executions and detentions have occurred in Rwanda against the Tutsi ethnic group.

Despite repeated notifications from the African Commission from 1990 to 1995 and attempts to conduct a fact‑finding mission, the Government of Rwanda did not substantively respond.

---

Legal Arguments

The decision did not disclose the legal arguments (if any) raised by the Complainants. Instead, the decision briefly summarised the factual allegations raised by the Complainants.

The World Organisation Against Torture and International Association of Democratic Lawyers alleged in 1989 that Burundi refugees in Rwanda were expelled, given one month to leave the country and were unable to defend themselves before a competent court. It was further alleged in 1991 that thousands of people, including women, children and the aged were in detention held in deplorable conditions, and arrests were made on the basis of ethnic origin and peaceful political activities. Furthermore, a large number of villages had been destroyed and villagers, mostly Tutsis, have been massacred.

The International Commission of Jurists alleged in 1990 that arbitrary arrests and summary executions have occurred in Rwanda.

The Inter-African Union for Human Rights submitted a report in 1993 detailing alleged violations such as widespread massacres, extrajudicial executions and arbitrary arrests against the Tutsi ethnic group.

The Government of Rwanda did not provide any substantive response.

Outcome

Noting the Government of Rwanda’s lack of substantive response despite repeated notifications, the Commission applied its established principle that uncontested allegations of serious human rights abuse may be treated as given, and proceeded to assess the facts as presented by the Complainants.

The Commission found violations of:

• non‑discrimination under Article 2 of the Charter, as the denial of numerous rights was based on individuals’ Tutsi ethnicity
• the right to life and integrity under Article 4, based on evidence of massacres of Rwandan villagers and extrajudicial executions on account of membership in a particular ethnic group
• the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 5 due to the conditions of detention that violated the physical and psychological integrity of women, children and aged persons
• the right to liberty and security under Article 6, based on evidence that arrests and detentions were based solely on ethnic origin;
• the right to have one’s case heard, including access to an appeal to competent national organs under Article 7(1), as refugees were expelled without opportunity to be heard by national judicial authorities; and
• the right to seek and obtain asylum and the prohibition on arbitrary and mass expulsion of non‑nationals under Articles 12(3)-(5) due to ample evidence that groups of Burundian refugees were expelled on the basis of their nationality.

Regarding admissibility, the Commission declared the communications admissible, holding that exhaustion of local remedies – usually required under Article 56 of the African Charter – was not necessary because the allegations revealed serious or massive violations involving a large number of victims and wide‑ranging abuses.

International, Regional and Domestic Instruments and Provisions Cited

Source	Instrument name	Provisions cited
Regional	African Charter	Arts 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 56, 58

UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines cited

This case does not cite UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines.

Available commentary

Gino J Naldi and Cristiano D’Orsi, ‘The Multi-faceted Aspects of Asylum-law Applicable to Africa: Analysis for Reflection’ (2014) 36 L Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 115

• The authors explore the pan-African approach to dealing with refugees through the concept of asylum. The case was identified as an example where the Commission recognises that rights under the African Charter are applicable to refugees, including:
  • the rights to human dignity, liberty and security, access to judicial protection;
  • the protection of those subject to persecution;
  • the principle of non-discrimination;
  • the right to have case review; and
  • the prohibition of mass expulsion of aliens

Monica Visalam Iyer, ‘Environmental Migration in Regional Human Rights Courts: A Lifeboat from the “Sinking Vessel”’ (2024) 91 Tennessee Law Review 363

• The authors examine the role of regional human rights judicial bodies in developing jurisprudence that protects those at risk of refoulement to situations of environmental harm.  In relation to the case, the author highlighted that the Commission found that Article 12 of the African Charter ‘should be read as including a general protection of all those who are subject to persecution, that they may seek refuge in another state’, and that Article 7(1) enshrined the right to have one’s case heard (page 397). The Commission found that Article 2 and 12 combined imposed an obligation on the contracting State to secure the rights protected in the Charter to all persons with their jurisdiction, whether nationals or non-nationals.

Ahimbisibwe Frank, ‘Respecting her International Obligations? Analyzing Rwanda’s 2014 Law Relating to Refugees’ (2023) 23 ISIL Year Book of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law 127

• The author highlights the case as an example of regional courts which have ruled on the principle of non-refoulement. In particular, the author referred to paragraph 33 where the Commission held there is ample evidence that groups of Burundian refugees were expelled on the basis of nationality, clearly violating Article 12(5) of the African Charter.

Ahimbisibwe Frank, 'The Legal Status of Refugee Protection and State Obligations in Uganda' (2016) 13(10) US-China Law Review 730

• The author identified that the case is consistent with the conclusion in Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v Guinea,36^th sess, Doc No 249/02 (December 2004), highlighting the fact that refugees are entitled to the rights enshrined in the African Charter.