1. The Secretariat of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
(the Committee/ACERWC) received a communication dated 16 November 2015 pursuant to
Article 44(1) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (the
Charter/ACRWC). The Communication is submitted by the Institute for Human Rights and
Development in Africa and Finders Group Initiative (the Complainants). According to Section
IX (2) (i) of the Revised Guidelines on Consideration of Communications by the ACERWC
(the Revised Communication Guidelines), the Committee transmitted a copy of the
Communication to the Respondent State Party. Upon receipt of the Communication, the
State Party should have submitted its response within 60 days from the date of the request
from the Secretariat. As the Committee did not receive a response from the Government,
two Note Verbals (Ref: DSA/ACE/64/2495.15 dated on 03 December 2015 and Ref:
DSA/ACE/64/1929.16 dated on 21 November 2016) were sent to remind the State Party.
Despite these efforts, the Committee has not received a response from the Government;
hence, it decided to proceed considering the admissibility of the Communication without the
response from the Respondent State. Following the deliberation on the required elements of
admissibility, the Committee ruled that the Communiation is admissible and forwarded its
ruling to the parties in the Communication on 29 February 2017.
2. In April 2017, the Respondent State, pursuant to Section XX of the Revised Guidelines,
submitted an application requesting the Committee to consider revising its decision on
admissibility and declare the Communication inadmissible. The Respondent State used
failure to fulfil the requirement of non-exhaustion of local remedies by the applicants as the
basis of its arguments.
3. Deliberating on the Respondent State‟s submission, the Committee notes that Section XX of
the Revised Communication Guidelines stipulates conditions for the review of decisions of
the Committee on admissibility rulings. Accordingly, the Revised Guidelines clearly prescribe
that in determining whether to review its decision, the Committee shall satisfy itself of any of
the following:
a. The discovery of some decisive fact or evidence, which was not known to the
Committee and the party requesting the review, provided such ignorance was not due
to negligence;
b. The application for review is made within six months of the discovery of the new fact;
unless the best interest of the child or children concerned;
c. The Committee erred in its application and interpretation of the African Children‟s
Charter or any other relevant instrument in a manner that undermines fairness, justice
and protection of the rights and welfare of the child; or
d. The existence of any other compelling reason the Committee may deem appropriate
or relevant to justify a review of its decision with a view to ensuring fairness, justice
and protection of the rights and welfare of the child.
4. The Committee deliberated on whether the Respondent State‟s submission meets one or
more of the requirements provided in the Revised Guidelines. The Committee then ruled
that the requested revision is not warranted under any of the above-metnioed conditions
provided in the Revised Communication Guidelines. The Committee particularly notes that it
rather admitted the communication considering the legitimate reasons which necessitate the
application of the principles of exceptions to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies
as elaborated below.
5. The Committee, pursuant to Section XI of the Revised Guidelines on procedure for hearing
on communications, deems it necessary to conduct a hearing on the Communication where
the parties are invited to make oral submissions before it. Accordingly, the Committee
conducted a hearing on the merits of the Communication on 11 December 2017 during its
30th Ordinary Session held in Khartoum, the Sudan, in the presence of the representatives
of the Complainants and the Respondent State.


Select target paragraph3