103- Ahmadou Sadio Diallo Case (Republic of Guinea vs Democratic Republic of the Congo)
103- Ahmadou Sadio Diallo Case (Republic of Guinea vs Democratic Republic of the Congo)
On December 28th, 1998, The Republic of Guinea filed an application against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in respect of a dispute concerning ”serious violations of international law”, against one of its citizens, Mr. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, a Guinean business man who had been residing in the DRC for over thirty years.
Most notably, the applicant State contended that Mr. Diallo had been unjustly imprisoned, despoiled of his investments before being expelled from the DRC, even though he was in the process of recovering outstanding debts owed to him by the Congolese government. These actions, according to Guinea, violated various international instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AChHPR).
As a reply, the DRC raised preliminary objections regarding the admissibility of the admissibility of this application. Therefore, the ICJ had to rule on this preliminary exception and decided on its judgment of May 24th, 2007 that Guinea’s application was admissible insofar as it dealt with the protection of Mr Diallo’s rights not only as a citizen but also as an associate of companies. It rejected however the rest of the arguments presented by Guinea.
Regarding the merits of the case, after reviewing the documents submitted and listening to the oral discussions, the ICJ ruled that Mr Diallo’s treatment was contrary to certain international instruments, most notably the ICCPR in its articles 9 paragraphs 1 and 2 and 13 and the AChHPR in its articles 6 and 12 paragraph 4. Finally, the Court found that the DRC had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in its article 36 (b) but rejected all the other claims presented by Guinea. DRC was under the obligation to provide appropriate compensation for the violation of the obligations undertaken the respondent State under the ICCPR and the AChHPR. Finally, with respect of the compensation, the ICJ gave 6 months to the States to agree on the amount to be paid by the DRC, otherwise, the Court would set the amount itself.
Both States could not come to an agreement regarding the amount to be paid. In its judgment of June 19th,2012, the ICJ ruled that the DRC had to pay USD 95 000 to Mr Diallo as a compensation for the mistreatment he suffered, payable no later than August 31st,2012 failing which, the respondent State would have to pay post-judgment interest on the principal sum at an annual rate of 6 percent starting September 1st,2012.
This summary is provided for informational purposes only, does not involve the responsibility of Dome and should in no way be used as a substitute for a careful reading of the judgments and order of the case.
