imposed on some army officers. The government maintains that a new pluralist Constitution was
adopted, and that Mauritania is now a democratic State that respects the norms of the African Charter
on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
th
29. At the 19 Session of the Commission, the Mauritanian government representative in attendance
did not contest the complainants’ allegations, claiming that grave and massive human rights violations
had been committed between 1989 and 1991. He expressed his governments wish to work together
with the Commission to assist the victims, making it clear that the country’s economy could not allow
them all to be compensated. He further declared that it would be difficult to verify the situation of each
victim prior to the 1989 events, which would make their resettlement impossible. He continued, saying
that all those displaced could return to their native villages. Besides, the Mauritanian government
representative categorically denied that the Black ethnic groups did not have the right to speak their
languages. He reiterated his government’s official position, that slavery had been abolished in
Mauritania during French colonial days.
Provisions of the Charter alleged to have been violated
The communications allege violation of Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19 and 26 of the African
Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Procedure
th
30. Communication 54/91 is dated 16 July 1991 and was submitted by Malawi African Association,
a non-governmental organisation.
th
31. The Commission was seized of it on 14 November 1991 and the Mauritanian government was
notified and called upon to make its observations known. No response was received from it.
th
32. At the 19 Session held in March 1996, the Commission heard Mr Ahmed Motala, representative
of Amnesty International, Mr Halidou Ouédraogo of UIDH, Mr Alioune Tine and Mr C. Faye of
RADDHO, as well as the representative of the Mauritanian government. Mr Ahmed Motala then sent
st
the Commission a letter dated 31 March 1996.
33. At the end of the hearings, the Commission held the view that the government did not seriously
contest the allegations brought against it. The Mauritanian delegate admitted that human rights
violations had indeed been committed. He did not try to explain the circumstances in which they had
taken place. He requested the Commission to give its assistance in finding a solution to the problem.
He further added that his government was ready to receive a delegation from the Commission to that
end. Following this, the Commission reiterated its decision to send a mission to Mauritania to try and
obtain an amicable settlement. It was also decided that the mission would be composed of the
Chairman of the Commission and Commissioners Rezag-Bara and Ondziel-Gnelenga, as well as the
Secretary to the Commission.
th
th
34. The mission was in Mauritania from 20 to 27 June 1996.
th
35. At the 20 Session held in Grand Bay, Mauritius, the Commission considered the mission’s report
st
and deferred the decisions on the communications to its 21 Session.
th
36. On 7 February 1997, the Secretariat wrote to the complainants explaining to them that the
mission report would be sent to the government for its observations by the end of February and that
they would subsequently have the chance to make comments on the said report.
st
37. At the 21 Session held in Nouakchott in April 1997, the Commission deferred its decision on this
nd
communication to the 22 Session, pending its receipt of the Mauritanian government’s reaction to the
mission report.
st
38. Communication 61/91 was submitted by Amnesty International, on 21 August 1991.
th
39. The Commission was seized of it at its 10 Session, held in October 1991.
th
40. The Mauritanian government was notified of it by the Secretariat on 14 November 1991.
th
41. At the 15 Session, the Commission decided to compile all the communications filed against
Mauritania.
42. From that date, the procedure for the present communication became identical to that for
communication 54/91.