Centre for Human Rights and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania

Nature of the Case

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights held that the United Republic of Tanzania violated the human rights of persons with albinism (“PWA”), as protected by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“the Charter”), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child ( “Children’s Charter”). The Court ordered both compensatory and injunctive relief, including, among other things, a fund of ten million Tanzanian shillings, reunification of children with albinism and families, the full realization of the rights to health and education for children with albinism and an education campaign to counter myths regarding PWA within Tanzania’s borders.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

The effectiveness of the Court’s ruling, even as an apex African court, is undermined by resistance at the state-level. 75% of African states fail to comply with its decisions. Tanzania is one of many African countries —including Rwanda, Côte d’Ivoire, and Benin— that withdrew their permission for both individuals and NGOs to access the court. This “might be seen as hindering development of the Court’s authority.” Moreover, Tanzania has a history of ignoring certain aspects of decisions while implementing others. It remains to be seen the level of compliance Tanzania intends to commit toward in the months following the decision of the Court.

Significance of the Case

In 2015, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights appointed an Independent Expert to detail the human rights violations experienced by persons with albinism. This appointment affected a mandate in which countries with high proportions of PWA had to make affirmative efforts to protect their rights. This was particularly true in sub-Saharan Africa, where 1 in 4,000 people have albinism. The findings of the report are mentioned throughout the Court’s opinion, and the Independent Expert recently authored a ten-year update to the report.

Tanzania now has an affirmative obligation to utilize the maximum-available resources to realize the rights of PWA regarding health and education, and must adduce evidence to show that it has done so. As described by the Independent Expert, who submitted her own amicus curiae brief for the case, the opinion was a “strong decision on reparations.” Other experts noted that it was “certainly a landmark ruling” and “sets an important precedent,” as this was the first case the Court decided concerning the rights of people with albinism.  Given that more than 700 attacks against PWA have occurred in 28 countries and that a large black market trade in body parts of PWA exists across Africa, this case sets a baseline that countries will be held liable for failure to effectively combat those actions within their borders.  

Much of the opinion also refers to several U.N. reports authored over the course of the last decade. The U.N. has conducted several fact-finding missions in Tanzania and other sub-Saharan African countries, which helped inform the Court’s decision-making. The findings of the Court help bolster the U.N.’s efforts in combating discrimination against PWA and mitigate the effects of that discrimination, and may encourage U.N. member states to agree to further fact-finding missions to determine compliance with international regulation.