The African Commission’s second function is to protect human and peoples’ rights, as set out in article 45 (2) of the African Charter. To fulfil its mission of protecting human rights, the African Commission does the following:
As part of its protective mandate, the African Commission receives and considers periodic reports submitted by State parties as per Article 62 of the African Charter (for example, Angola’s 7th periodic report submitted in 2023). Every State goes through a public review during the ordinary sessions of the African Commission, during which Commissioners engage in a dialogue with State representatives, ask questions, and make recommendations.
See Section 2.5: State Periodic Review - Why is it useful?
In its protective function, the African Commission provides for the ‘Communication procedure', its very own judicial process open to civil society. This procedure is a complaint mechanism through which a State, an individual, a group of individuals, or an NGO, who feel like their rights or those of others have been or are being violated, can petition (complaint to) the African Commission about these violations (for example, the Burundi case brought forward by the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa). In emergency situations – for example where the life of the victim is in imminent danger – the African Commission may issue Provisional Measures (a temporary remedy to ensure protection under special circumstances) to be adopted by the State in question.
The African Commission can also issue urgent appeals and statements: for example regarding the human rights situation and the escalating violence in 2023 in Sudan, especially with respect to women and displaced persons.
The African Commission has also conducted fact-finding missions to several States to investigate allegations of massive and serious human rights violations. At the end of such a mission, the African Commission makes recommendations to the State(s) in question on how to improve a given human rights situation. See for example the African Commission’s fact-finding mission to Western Sahara in 2012.
The African Commission should not be confused with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the ‘African Court’). The Court is a judicial body meant to complement the protective mandate of the African Commission through legally binding decisions based on the African Charter. As of March 2025, only Burkina Faso, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Malawi, Niger have recognized the competence (i.e. the authority) of the African Court (Tunisia very recently withdraw the article, see here.)
Don Deya, from the Pan African Lawyers Union described a momentous experience regarding Libya, in a case filed at the African Commission by the Egyptian Initiative on Personal Rights, Human Rights Watch, and Interights: “When the crisis in Libya broke out, what others call the Arab Spring, the administration was abusive and violated citizens’ rights on the street. Libyan CSOs had strong relationships with their colleagues around the world, who filed a series of complaints at the ACHPR in March 2011 accusing the Libyan government of committing massive human rights violations in the context of responding to the demonstrations and protests. The Commission received this Communication literally on the last day of an extraordinary session, and for the first time, they referred the case to the African Court, citing the principle of complementarity. The Court accepted the ACHPR referral, ordered provisional measures instructing the Libyan government to stop killing their civilians and to present within one month to the court what measures they had taken. It was fantastic!
Libya, to our surprise, accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, and confirmed that they would defend their case. So here was an opportunity for us, African citizens, in the middle of a conflict, to engage with and confront a government, not in a political way, but on a judicial basis, with facts and evidence on both sides. Ultimately, neither the people nor the outgoing Libyan administration had a chance to come before an impartial judicial mechanism. But it showed that the system can work. It just requires citizens to be robust and audacious enough, and for institutions to focus on substantive justice.”
For more information, see Chapter 2: Engaging with the African Commission from home.
