Logo law and pluralism
Logo Università Bicocca

Relevant case law

A collection, sorted by years, of the most important judicial decisions concerning pluralism.

Centre for Human Rights (CHR), Institute for human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) & Legal and Human rights Centre (LHRC) v. United Republic of Tanzania, No. 019/2018, AfCHPR, 5 February 2025

Centre for Human Rights (CHR), Institute for human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) & Legal and Human rights Centre (LHRC) v. United Republic of Tanzania, No. 019/2018, AfCHPR, 5 February 2025

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights held Tanzania responsible for numerous human rights violations for failing to ensure adequate protection for persons with albinism. The Court recalled that approximately 200,000 persons with albinism live in the country and constitute a systematically discriminated and stigmatized group, victims of superstitious beliefs and myths about supposed magical powers attributed to them. Among the practices to which such persons are subjected are ritual attacks, the trade of body parts for witchcraft purposes, human and organ trafficking, the desecration of graves, and the theft of human remains. In particular, women and children are especially exposed to family abandonment and social marginalization.

The Court found that the State had violated its obligation of non-discrimination, having failed to adopt adequate measures to combat the myths and stereotypes associated with albinism. It held that, in this case, discrimination stemmed directly from the beliefs attributed to persons with albinism and that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), both for the conduct of its agents and for its omission in preventing discriminatory acts by private individuals.

The Court also found that Tanzania had breached several positive obligations of protection. These included the right to life (Article 4 of the ACHPR and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), for failing to prevent, investigate, and punish the killings of persons with albinism; and the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5 of the ACHPR and Article 7 of the Covenant), due to the State’s negligence in prosecuting those responsible for such acts. The Court observed that attacks carried out by private individuals, coupled with the absence of effective responses by public authorities, violated the dignity of persons with albinism and deepened their social exclusion.

Particular attention was devoted to the protection of children. The Court held that Tanzania had violated Article 29 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, for failing to prevent the trafficking and sale of children with albinism; Article 4, for not considering the best interests of the child in managing temporary shelters established in response to violence against children with albinism; as well as Articles 11 of the same Charter and 17(1) of the ACHPR, for failing to guarantee education that was available, accessible, and adapted to the specific needs of children with albinism. Finally, the Court found a violation of the right to health (Article 16 of the ACHPR and Article 24 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child), as the State had not ensured an adequate standard of healthcare corresponding to the physical and psychological needs of persons with albinism.

 

(Comment by Bernardo Mageste Castelar Campos)