APDH v Côte d’Ivoire (2016) 1 AfCLR 668
687
VIII. Costs
152. The Court notes that the Parties did not make any submissions as
to costs. In accordance with Rule 30 of the Rules, each Party shall bear
its own costs.
153. For these reasons,
THE COURT,
Unanimously:
1) Declares that it has jurisdiction to hear this case;
2) Dismisses the objection to the admissibility of the Application on the
grounds of the nature of the language used by the Applicant;
3) Dismisses the objection to the admissibility of the Application on the
grounds of failure to exhaust local remedies;
4) Declares the Application admissible;
By a majority of nine (9) votes for and one (1) against, Judge El Hadji
GUISSÉ dissenting:
5) Rules that the Respondent State has violated its obligation to
establish an independent and impartial electoral body as provided
under Article 17 of the African Charter on Democracy and Article 3 of
the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol, and consequently, also violated its
obligation to protect the right of the citizens to participate freely in the
management of the public affairs of their country guaranteed by Article
13(1) and (2)) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights;
6) Rules that the Respondent State has violated its obligation to protect
the right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by Article 10(3) of the
African Charter on Democracy, Article 3(2) of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 26 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
7) Orders the Respondent State to amend Law No 2014-335 of 18 June
2014 on the Independent Electoral Commission to make it compliant
with the aforementioned instruments to which it is a Party;
8) Orders the Respondent State to submit to it a report on the
implementation of this decision within a reasonable time which, in any
case, should not exceed one year from the date of publication of this
Judgment;
Unanimously,
9) Rules that each Party shall bear its own costs.
***
Separate opinion: OUGUERGOUZ
1. I subscribe to the Court’s decisions as regards its jurisdiction to hear
the Application and as regards the Application’s admissibility. As for the
merits of the case, I consider inadequate the reasoning behind the
judgment as to the lack of independence and impartiality of the