EACJ Cases Included in Analysis [Short Name]

Note: First Instance and Appellate cases listed separately. Interim proceeding not listed.

• Abdu Katuntu v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 5/2012, EACJ (November 25, 2013)

• African Network for Animal Welfare v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 9/2010, EACJ (June 20, 2014), [ANAW v Tanzania, Ref. 9/2010]

• Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda & 2 Others, Appeal No. 3/2013, EACJ (July 27, 2015)

• Alcon International Limited v Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda & 2 Others, Reference No. 6/2010, EACJ (September 2, 2013)

• Among A. Anita v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & The Secretary General of The East African Community, Reference No. 6/2012, EACJ (November 29, 2013), [Anita v Uganda & EAC, Ref. 6/2012]

• Anthony Calist Komu v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 7/2012, EACJ (September 26, 2014)

• Audace Ngendakumana v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 11/2014, EACJ (November 27, 2015)

• Baranzira Raphael & Ntakiyiruta Joseph v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 15/2014, EACJ (March 22, 2016), [Raphael & Anor v Burundi, Ref. 15/2014]

• Benoit Ndorimana v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 2/2013, EACJ (November 28, 2014)

• Bonaventure Gasutwa & 2 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 13/2014, EACJ (November 26, 2015)

• British American Tobacco (U) Ltd v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 7/2017, EACJ (March 26, 2019), [BAT Ltd v Uganda, Ref. 7/2017]

• Burundi Journalists Union v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 7/2013, EACJ (May 15, 2015), [Burundi Journalist Union v Burundi, Ref. 7/2013]

• Calist Andrew Mwatela & 2 Others v The East African Community, Application No. 1/2005 (arising from Reference No. 1/2005), EACJ (October 1, 2006), [Mwatela & Ors. v EAC, App. 1/2005]

• Christopher Mtikila v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 2/2007, EACJ (April 24, 2007)

• Democratic Party & Mukasa Mbidde v The Secretary General of the East African Community & The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 6/2011, EACJ (May 9, 2012), [Democratic Party & Mbidde v EAC & Uganda, Ref. 6/2011]

• Democratic Party v The Secretary General of the East African Community & 4 Others, Appeal No. 1/2014, EACJ (July 28, 2015)

• Democratic Party v The Secretary General of the East African Community & 4 Others, Reference No. 2/2012, EACJ (November 29, 2013)

• East African Centre for Trade Policy & Law v The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 9/2012, EACJ (May 10, 2013)

• East African Civil Society Organizations’ Forum v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & 2 Others, Appeal No. 4/2016, EACJ (May 24, 2018)

• East African Civil Society Organizations’ Forum v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & 2 Others, Reference No. 2/2015 (de novo), EACJ (December 3, 2019)

• East African Civil Society Organizations’ Forum v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & 2 Others, Reference No. 2/2015, EACJ (September 29, 2016)

• East African Law Society & 4 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & 3 Others, Reference No. 3/2007, EACJ (August 31, 2008), [EALS & Ors. v Kenya & Ors., Ref. 3/2007]

• East African Law Society v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 1/2014, EACJ (May 15, 2015), [EALS v Burundi & EAC, Ref. 1/2014]

• East African Law Society v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 2/2011, EACJ (March 28, 2018), [EALS v Uganda & EAC, Ref. 2/2011]

• East African Law Society v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 1/2019, EACJ (November 25, 2020)

• East African Law Society v The Secretary General of The East African Community, Reference No. 1/2011, EACJ (February 14, 2013)

• East African Law Society vs The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 7/2014, EACJ (March 22, 2016), [EALS v EAC, Ref. 7/2014]

• Emmanuel Mwakisha Mjawasi & 748 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya, Reference No. 2/2010, EACJ (September 28, 2011)

• Emmanuel Mwakisha Mjawasi & 748 Others vs The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya, Appeal No. 4/2011, EACJ (April 27, 2012)

• Eric Kabalisa Makala v The Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda, Reference No. 1/2017, EACJ (June 18, 2020), [Makala v Rwanda, Ref. 1/2017]

• Georges Ruhara v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 4/2014, EACJ (August 7, 2015)

• Godfrey Magezi v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Appeal No. 3/2015, EACJ (May 26, 2016)

• Godfrey Magezi v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 5/2013, EACJ (May 14, 2015)

• Grands Lacs Suppliers S.A.R.L. & Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 6/2016, EACJ (June 19, 2018), [Grands Lacs Suppliers & Ors. v Burundi, Ref. 6/2016]

• Hassan Basajjabalaba & Another v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 8/2018, EACJ (July 22, 2020)

• Henry Kyarimpa v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Appeal No. 6/2014, EACJ (February 19, 2016)

• Henry Kyarimpa v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 4/2013, EACJ (November 28, 2014)

• Hilaire Ndayizamba v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 3/2012, EACJ (March 28, 2014)

• Hon. Dr. Margaret Zziwa v The Secretary General of the East African Community, Appeal No. 2/2017, EACJ (May 25, 2018)

• Hon. Dr. Margaret Zziwa v The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 17/2014, EACJ (February 3, 2017)

• Hon. Justice Malek Mathiang Malek v The Attorney General of the Republic of South Sudan & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 9/2017, EACJ (July 24, 2020)

• Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of the East African Community & 2 Others, Reference No. 1/2010, EACJ (June 29, 2011)

• Hon. Sitenda Sebalu v The Secretary General of The East African Community, Reference No. 8/2012, EACJ (December 22, 2013)

• Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 6/2014, EACJ (September 27, 2016)

• Independent Medical Legal Unit v The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & 4 Others, Reference No. 3/2010, EACJ (July 20, 2011), [IMLU v Kenya, Ref. 3/2010]

• Ismael Dabule & 1004 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 5/2016, EACJ (November 28, 2018)

• Ismael Dabule & 1004 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Appeal No. 1/2018, EACJ (February 25, 2020)

• James Alfred Koroso v The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & Another, Reference No. 12/2014, EACJ (March 24, 2016)

• James Katabazi & 21 Others v The Secretary General of the East African Community & The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 1/2007, EACJ (October 31, 2007), [Katabazi v EAC & Uganda, Ref. 1/2007]

• Le Forum pour le Renforcement de la Société Civile & 4 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 12/2016, EACJ (December 4, 2019), [FORSC & Ors. v Burundi & EAC, Ref. 12/2016]

• Legal Brains Trust Limited v Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Appeal 4/2012, EACJ (May 19, 2012)

• Legal Brains Trust Limited v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 10/2011, EACJ (March 30, 2012)

• M/S Quick Telecommunications Services v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 10/2016, EACJ (July 3, 2019), [M/S Quick Telecommunications v Tanzania, Ref. 10/2016]

• Malcom Lukwiya v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya, Reference No. 6/2015, EACJ (November 27, 2018)

• Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 6/2019, EACJ (September 30, 2020)

• Manariyo Desire v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Appeal No. 1/2017, EACJ (November 28, 2018)

• Manariyo Desire v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 8/2015, EACJ (December 2, 2016)

• Martha Wangari Karua v The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya, Reference No. 20/2019, EACJ (November 30, 2020)

• Mary Ariviza & Another v the Attorney General of Kenya & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 7/2010, EACJ (November 30, 2011)

• Mary Ariviza v The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Appeal No. 3/2012, EACJ (November 8, 2013)

• Mbugua Mureithi Wa Nyambura v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya, Reference No. 11/2011, EACJ (February 24, 2014)

• Media Council of Tanzania & 2 Others v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 5/2019 (in an intended appeal), EACJ (June 9, 2020)

• Media Council of Tanzania & 2 Others v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 2/2017, EACJ (March 28, 2019), [Media Council of Tanzania v Ors. v Tanzania, Ref. 2/2017]

• Modern Holdings (EA) Limited v Kenya Ports Authority, Reference No. 1/2008, EACJ (February 11, 2009)

• Mpozayo Christophe v The Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda, Reference No. 10/2014, EACJ (September 28, 2018), [Christophe v Rwanda, Ref. 10/2014]

• Mseto & Another v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Consolidated Applications Nos. 3 and 4/2019 (in an intended appeal), EACJ (June 2, 2020)

• Mseto & Another v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 7/2016, EACJ (June 21, 2018), [Mseto & Anor. v Tanzania, Ref. 7/2016]

• Patrick Ntege Walusimbi & 2 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda & 5 Others, Reference No. 8/2013, EACJ (February 27, 2015)

• Paul John Mhozya v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 2/2016, EACJ (June 27, 2018)

• Plaxeda Rugumba v The Secretary General of the East African Community & the Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda, Reference No. 8/2010, EACJ (November 30, 2011), [Rugumba v EAC & Rwanda, Ref. 8/2010]

• Preliminary Ruling in the case of the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Tom Kyahurwenda, Case Stated 1/2014, EACJ (July 31, 2015)

• Prof. Nyamoya Francois v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 8/2011, EACJ (March 28, 2014)

• Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o & 10 Others v The Attorney General of Kenya & 5 Others, Reference No. 1/2006, EACJ (March 29, 2007), [Anyang’ Nyong’o v Kenya & Ors., Ref. 1/2006]

• Rashid Salim Adiy & 39,999 Others v The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, Reference No. 9/2016, EACJ (September 29, 2020)

• Ronald Ssembuusi v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 16/2014, EACJ (November 23, 2020), [Ssembuusi v Uganda, Ref. 16/2014]

• Rwenga Etienne & Another vs The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 5/2015, EACJ (March 23, 2016)

• Samuel Mukira Mohochi v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 5/2011, EACJ (May 17, 2013), [Mohochi v Uganda, Ref. 5/2011]

• Simon Peter Ochieng & Another v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Appeal No. 4/2015, EACJ (November 24, 2016)

• Simon Peter Ochieng & Another v The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, Reference No. 11/2013, EACJ (August 7, 2015)

• Steven Deniss v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi & 5 Others, Reference No. 3/2015, EACJ (March 31, 2017)

• The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v The Secretary General of the East African Community, Appeal No. 2/2019, EACJ (June 4, 2020), [Burundi v EAC, Appeal 2/2019]

• The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi v The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 2/2018, EACJ (July 2, 2019)

• The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit, Appeal No. 1/2011, EACJ (March 15, 2012), [Kenya v IMLU, Appeal 1/2011]

• The Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda v Plaxeda Rugumba, Appeal No. 1/2012, EACJ (June 21, 2012), [Rwanda v Rugumba, Appeal 1/2012]

• The Attorney General of the Republic Uganda v Omar Awadh & 6 Others, Appeal No. 2/2012, EACJ (April 15, 2013)

• The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v African Network for Animal Welfare, Appeal No. 3/2014, EACJ (July 29, 2015), [Tanzania v ANAW, Appeal 3/2014]

• The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania v Anthony Calist Komu, Appeal No. 2/2015, EACJ (November 25, 2016)

• Theodore Niyongabo & 2 Others v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 4/2017, EACJ (June 16, 2020)

• Timothy Alvin Kahoho v The Secretary General of The East African Community, Appeal No. 2/2013, EACJ (November 28, 2014)

• Timothy Alvin Kahoho v The Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 1/2012, EACJ (May 17, 2013)

• Union Trade Centre v The Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda, Reference No. 10/2013, EACJ (November 27, 2014)

• Union Trade Centre v The Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda, Appeal No. 1/2015, EACJ (November 20, 2015)

• Union Trade Centre v The Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda, Reference No. 10/2013 (denovo), EACJ (November 26, 2020)

• Venant Masenge v The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, Reference No. 9/2012, EACJ (June 18, 2014)

CCJ Cases Included in Analysis, by Application [Short Name]

ACtHPR Cases Included in Analysis [Short Name]

Note: When the case has more than one ruling or judgment (e.g., jurisdiction, merits, reparations), I list the merits judgment.

• Actions pour la protection des Droits de l’Homme v Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Application No. 1/2014, ACtHPR (November 18, 2016), [APHD v Côte d’Ivoire, App. 1/2014]

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Application No. 4/2011, ACtHPR (March 15, 2013)

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Libya, Application No. 2/2013, ACtHPR (June 3, 2016)

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya, Application No. 6/2012, ACtHPR (May 26, 2017)

• Akwasi Boateng & 351 Others v Republic of Ghana, Application No. 59/2016, ACtHPR (November 27, 2020)

• Alex Thomas v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 5/2013, ACtHPR (November 20, 2015), [Thomas v Tanzania, App. 5/2013]

• Alfred Agbes Woyome v Republic of Ghana, Application No. 1/2017, ACtHPR (June 28, 2019)

• Ally Rajabu & Others v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 7/2015, ACtHPR (November 28, 2019), [Rajabu v Tanzania, App. 7/2015]

• Amir Adam Timan v Republic of Sudan, Application No. 5/2012, ACtHPR (March 30, 2012)

• Amir Ramadhani v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 10/2015, ACtHPR (May 11, 2018)

• Anaclet Paulo v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 20/2016, ACtHPR (September 21, 2018)

• Andrew Ambrose Cheusi v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 4/2015, ACtHPR (June 26, 2020)

• Anudo Ochieng Anudo v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 12/2015, ACtHPR (March 22, 2018)

• Armand Guehi v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 1/2015, ACtHPR (December 7, 2018)

• Association des Juristes d’Afrique pour la Bonne Gouvernance v Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Application No. 6/2011, ACtHPR (June 16, 2011)

• Association pour le Progrès et la Défense des Droits des Femmes Maliennes & The Institute for Human Rights and Development v Republic of Mali, Application No. 46/2016, ACtHPR (May 11, 2018), [ADPF & IHRDA v Mali, App. 46/2016]

• Atabong Denis Atemnkeng v African Union, Application No. 14/2011, ACtHPR (March 15, 2013)

• Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi v Republic of Tunisia, Application No. 7/2012, ACtHPR (June 26, 2012)

• Benedicto Daniel Mallya v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 18/2015, ACtHPR (September 26, 2019)

• Beneficiaries of the Late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo & Blaise Ilboudo & Burkinabè Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement v Burkina Faso, Application No. 13/2011, ACtHPR (March 28, 2014)

• Boubacar Sissoko & 74 Others v Republic of Mali, Application No. 37/2017, ACtHPR (September 25, 2020)

• Chananja Luchagula v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 39/2016, ACtHPR (September 25, 2020)

• Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 11/2015, ACtHPR (September 28, 2017)

• Collectif des Anciens Travailleurs de la Semico Tabakoto v Republic of Mali, Application No. 9/2018, ACtHPR (November 27, 2020)

• Collectif des Anciens Travailleurs du Laboratoire v Republic of Mali, Application No. 42/2016, ACtHPR (March 28, 2019)

• Daniel Amare & Mulugeta Amare v Republic of Mozambique, Application No. 5/2011, ACtHPR (June 16, 2011)

• Delta International Investments S.A., Mr and Mrs A.G.L. De Lange v Republic of South Africa, Application No. 2/2012, ACtHPR (March 30, 2012)

• Dexter Eddie Johnson v Republic of Ghana, Application No. 16/2017, ACtHPR (March 28, 2019)

• Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 16/2016, ACtHPR (September 21, 2018)

• Dismas Bunyerere v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 31/2015, ACtHPR (November 28, 2019)

• Efoua Mbozo’o Samuel v Pan-African Parliament, Application No. 10/2011, ACtHPR (September 30, 2011)

• Ekollo Moundi Alexandre v Republic of Cameroon & Federal Republic of Nigeria, Application No. 8/2011, ACtHPR (September 23, 2011)

• Emmanuel Joseph Uko & Others v Republic of South Africa, Application No. 4/2012, ACtHPR (March 30, 2012)

• Ernest Francis Mtingwi v Republic of Malawi, Application No. 1/2013, ACtHPR (March 15, 2013)

• Femi Falana v African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Application No. 19/2015, ACtHPR (November 20, 2015)

• Femi Falana v African Union, Application No. 1/2011, ACtHPR (June 26, 2012)

• Frank David Omary & Others v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 1/2012, ACtHPR (March 28, 2014)

• George Maili Kemboge v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 2/2016, ACtHPR (May 11, 2018)

• Godfred Antony & Ifunda Kisite v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 15/2015, ACtHPR (September 26, 2019)

• Gombert Jean-Claude Roger v Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Application No. 38/2016, ACtHPR (March 22, 2018)

• Hamad Mohamed Lyambaka v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 10/2016, ACtHPR (September 25, 2020)

• Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v Republic of Benin, Application No. 3/2020, ACtHPR (December 4, 2020)

• Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 3/2014, ACtHPR (November 24, 2017), [Umuhoza v Rwanda, App. 3/2014]

• James Wanjara & 4 Others v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 33/2015, ACtHPR (September 25, 2020)

• Jebra Kambole v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 18/2018, ACtHPR (July 15, 2020)

• Jibu Amir alias Mussa & Saidi Ally alias Mangaya v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 14/2015, ACtHPR (November 28, 2019)

• Job Mlama & 2 Others v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 19/2016, ACtHPR (September 25, 2020)

• Kalebi Elisamehe v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 28/2015, ACtHPR (June 26, 2020)

• Kenedy Ivan v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 25/2016, ACtHPR (March 28, 2019)

• Kennedy Gihana & Others v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 17/2015, ACtHPR (November 28, 2019)

• Kennedy Owino Onyachi & Others v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 3/2015, ACtHPR (September 28, 2017)

• Kijiji Isiaga v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 32/2015, ACtHPR (March 21, 2018)

• Leon Mugesera v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 12/2017, ACtHPR (November 27, 2020)

• Livinus Daudi Manyuka v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 20/2015, ACtHPR (November 28, 2019)

• Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso, Application No. 4/2013, ACtHPR (December 5, 2014), [Konaté v Burkina Faso, App. 4/2013]

• Lucien Ikili Rashidi v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 9/2015, ACtHPR (March 28, 2019), [Rashidi v Tanzania, App. 9/2015]

• Majid Goa alias Vedatus v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 25/2015, ACtHPR (September 26, 2019)

• Mamadou Diakite & Diakite Habibata B. Guindo v Republic of Mali, Application No. 9/2016, ACtHPR (September 28, 2017)

• Mariam Kouma & Another v Republic of Mali, Application No. 40/2016, ACtHPR (March 21, 2018)

• Mgosi Mwita Makungu v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 6/2016, ACtHPR (December 7, 2018)

• Michelot Yogogombaye v Republic of Senegal, Application No. 1/2008, ACtHPR (December 15, 2009)

• Minani Evarist v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 27/2015, ACtHPR (September 21, 2018)

• Mohamed Abubakari v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 7/2013, ACtHPR (June 3, 2016)

• Mulindahabi Fidèle v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 4/2017, ACtHPR (June 26, 2020)

• Mulindahabi Fidèle v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 5/2017, ACtHPR (June 26, 2020)

• Mulindahabi Fidèle v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 6/2017, ACtHPR (July 4, 2019)

• Mulindahabi Fidèle v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 7/2017, ACtHPR (July 4, 2019)

• Mulindahabi Fidèle v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 9/2017, ACtHPR (July 4, 2019)

• Mulindahabi Fidèle v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 10/2017, ACtHPR (June 26, 2020)

• Mulindahabi Fidèle v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 11/2017, ACtHPR (June 26, 2020)

• National Convention of Teachers Trade Union v Republic of Gabon, Application No. 12/2011, ACtHPR (December 15, 2011)

• Nguza Viking & Johnson Nguza v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 6/2015, ACtHPR (March 23, 2018)

• Oscar Josiah v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 53/2016, ACtHPR (March 28, 2019)

• Peter Joseph Chacha v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 3/2012, ACtHPR (March 28, 2014)

• Ramadhani Issa Malengo v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 30/2015, ACtHPR (July 4, 2019)

• Robert John Penessis v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 13/2015, ACtHPR (November 28, 2019)

• Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v Republic of Rwanda, Application No. 22/2015, ACtHPR (May 11, 2018)

• Sébastien Germain Ajavon v Republic of Benin, Application No. 13/2017, ACtHPR (March 29, 2019)

• Sébastien Germain Marie Aikoue Ajavon v Republic of Benin, Application No. 62/2019, ACtHPR (December 4, 2020), [Ajavon v Benin, App. 62/2019]

• Shukurani Mango & Others v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 8/2015, ACtHPR (September 26, 2019)

• Soufiane Ababou v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Application No. 2/2011, ACtHPR (June 16, 2011)

• Suy Bi Gohore Emile & Others v Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Application No. 44/2019, ACtHPR (July 15, 2020)

• Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre & Reverend Christopher Mtikila v United Republic of Tanzania, Application Nos. 9 and 11/2011, ACtHPR (June 14, 2013), [Mtikila v Tanzania, Apps. 9 and 11/2011]

• Thobias Mango & Another v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 5/2015, ACtHPR (May 11, 2018)

• Urban Mkandawire v Republic of Malawi, Application No. 3/2011, ACtHPR (June 21, 2013)

• Werema Wangoko Werema & Another v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 24/2015, ACtHPR (December 7, 2018)

• Wilfred Onyango Nganyi & 9 Others v United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 6/2013, ACtHPR (March 18, 2016), [Nganyi & Ors. v Tanzania, App. 6/2013]

• XYZ v Republic of Benin, Application No. 10/2020, ACtHPR (November 27, 2020)

• XYZ v Republic of Benin, Application No. 59/2019, ACtHPR (November 27, 2020)

• Yacouba Traore v Republic of Mali, Application No. 10/2018, ACtHPR (September 25, 2020)

• Youssef Ababou v Kingdom of Morocco, Application No. 7/2011, ACtHPR (September 2, 2011)

Table A3.1

Sources for coding of formal independence by international court

Table A3.1 ( - A)

Table A3.1 (cont. - A)Long description

Table A3.1a

They are as follows.

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

• Constitutive Act of the African Union, adopted July 11, 2000, entered into force May 26, 2001, U N T S 2158, at 3 to 58.

• Rules of Court. Arusha, A C t H P R, 2010. african-court.org/en/images/Basic% 20Documents/Final_Rules_of_Court_for_Publication_after_Harmonization_-_ Final__English_7_sept_1_.pdf.

• Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and People’s Rights, adopted June 10, 1998, entered into force January 25, 2004. O A U Doc A U/L E G/E X P/A F C H P R/P R O T, 3. au.int/en/treaties/protocol-african-charter-human-andpeoples-rights-establishment-african-court-human-and.

Andean Community Tribunal of Justice, A T J

• Protocol of Cochabamba amending the Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement, adopted May 28, 1996, entered into force August 25, 1999. www.tribunalandino.org.ec/transparencia/normatividad/Tratado_Creaci%C3%B3n_TJCA.pdf.

• Statute of the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement, Decision Number 184. Quito, Commission of the Cartagena Agreement, 1983. www.comunidadandina.org/normativa-andina/decisiones/page/76/

• Statute of the Court of the Andean Community, Decision Number 500. Council of Ministers: Valencia, 2001. www.tribunalandino.org.ec/transparencia/normatividad/EstatutoTJCA.pdf.

• Treaty Creating the Court of Justice of the Cartagena Agreement, adopted May 28, 1979, entered into force May 19, 1983. International Legal Materials 18, number 5, 1979, 1203 to 10.

Table A3.1 ( - B)

Table A3.1 (cont. - B)Long description

Table A3.1b

They are as follows.

Arab Investment Court

• Pact of the League of Arab States, adopted March 22, 1945, entered into force May 10, 1945, U N T S 7, at 237 to 63.

• Unified Agreement for the Investment of Arab Capital in the Arab States, adopted November 26, 1980, entered into force September 7, 1981. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/2394/download.

• Statute of the Arab Investment Court, entered into force February 2, 1985, amended 2009. www.lasportal.org/en/legalnetwork/Pages/Investment_CourtSystems.aspx.

• Arab Investment Court’s Internal Rules, adopted March 3, 1986. www.lasportal.org/en/legalnetwork/Pages/Investment_CourtSystems.aspx.

• Hamida, Walid Ben. The First Arab Investment Court Decision. Journal of World Investment & Trade 7, number 5, 2006, 699 to 721.

• Hamida, Walid Ben. Arab Investment Court. In Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018.

Benelux Court of Justice, B C J

• Treaty concerning the Establishment and the Statute of a Benelux Court of Justice, adopted March 31, 1965, entered into force January 1, 1974, amended by Protocols of June 10, 1981 and November 23, 1984, U N T S 924, at 42 to 60, U N T S 1402, at 362 to 63, U N T S 1458, at 355 to 59.

• Treaty Instituting the Benelux Economic Union, adopted February 3, 1958, entered into force November 1, 1960, U N T S 381, at 260 to 304.

• Treaty Revising the Treaty Instituting the Benelux Economic Union, adopted June 17, 2008, entered into force January 1, 2012, U N T S 2868, at 107 to 38.

Central American Court of Justice, C A C J

• Convention on the Statute of the Central American Court of Justice, adopted December 10, 1992, entered into force February 2, 1994, U N T S 1821, at 292 to 303.

• Tegucigalpa Protocol to the Charter of the Organization of Central American States, adopted December 13, 1991, entered into force July 23, 1992, U N T S 1695, at 400 to 10.

• Reglamento General, adopted October 1995. In Regimen Juridico, second e d, 79 to 102. Managua, Central American Court of Justice, 2007. http://portal.ccj.org.ni/CCJ2/Default.aspx?tabid¼102.

Table A3.1 ( - C)

Table A3.1 (cont. - C)Long description

Table A3.1c

They are as follows.

Caribbean Court of Justice, C C J

• Agreement establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice, adopted February 14, 2001, entered into force July 23, 2002, U N T S 2255, at 319 to 41.

• Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas establishing the Caribbean Community including the CARICOM Single Market and Economy, adopted July 5, 2001, entered into force February 4, 2002, U N T S 2259, at 293 to 443.

• Protocol to the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice relating to the Tenure of Judges, Rules of Court, Financial Arrangements and withdrawal from Agreement, as well as the relationship between Provisions on the Original Jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice and the Constitutions of States Parties, Paramaribo Suriname, February 17, 2005, entered into force March 6, 2006. https://caricom.org/treaties/protocol-to-the-agreement-establishing-theccj-relating-to-the-tenure-of-judges-rules-of-court-financial-arrangements-andwithdrawal/

• Revised Agreement establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice Trust Fund, adopted January 12, 2004, entered into force January 27, 2004, U N T S 2324, at 231 to 43.

• Protocol for the Interfacing and Interaction of the Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, The Caribbean Court of Justice and the Caribbean Court of Justice Trust Fund, adopted and entered into force January 25, 2007

• Protocol to the Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice Relating to the Tenure of Office of Judges of the Court, adopted May 26, 2007, not yet in force but provisionally applied since June 7, 2007.

Central African Economic and Monetary Community Court of Justice, CEMAC C J

• Convention regissant la Cour de Justice de CEMAC, adopted July 5, 1996. www.cemac.int/textes-officiels.

• Convention revise regissant la Cour de Justice de CEMAC, adopted January 30, 2009. www.cemac.int/textes-officiels.

• Statut de la Chambre Judiciaire de la Cour de Justice, adopted December 14, 2000. Acte Additionnel number 06/00/CEMAC 041 C C E C J 0 2. www.cemac.int/textesofficiels.

• Traite revise de la Communaute Economique et Monetaire de l’Afrique Centrale, CEMAC, adopted June 25, 2008. www.cemac.int/textes-officiels.

• Traite instituant la Communaute Economique et Monetaire de l’Afrique Centrale, adopted March 16, 1994, entry into force June 25, 1999. www.wipo.int/wipolex/fr/text/201451.

• Regles de procedure de la Chambre Judiciaire de la Cour de Justice, adopted December 14, 2000. Acte Additionnel number 4/00/CEMAC 041 C C E C J 02. www.cemac.int/textes-officiels.

Court of Justice of the European Union, C J E U

• Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, 2010 O J. C 83/01. See https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html for early versions of treaties.

• Protocol number 3 to the Treaty of European Union on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, 2010 O J C 83/01.

Table A3.1 ( - D)

Table A3.1 (cont. - D)Long description

Table A3.1d

They are as follows.

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa Court of Justice, COMESA C J

• Treaty establishing the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, adopted November 5, 1993, entered into force December 8, 1994, U N T S 2314, at 265 to 385.

• Rules of the Court of the Court of Justice of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern African. Lusaka, COMESA C J, 2006. Accessed July 26, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20131220114112/ http://comesacourt.org/en/rules-of-the-court/.

East African Court of Justice, E A C J

• Treaty for the establishment of the East African Community, adopted November 30, 1999, entered into force July 7, 2000, U N T S 2144, at 255 to 327.

• Revised Treaty for the establishment of the East African Community, as amended December 14, 2006 and August 20, 2007. Arusha, E A C. www.eac.int/documents/category/key-documents.

Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States, E C C I S

• Agreement on the Statute of the Commonwealth of Independent States Economic Court, adopted and entered into force July 6, 1992. Moscow: Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Independent States. https://cis.minsk.by/reestrv2/doc/123

• Regulations on the Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independence States, adopted July 6, 1992. Moscow, Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Independent States. https://sudsng.org/download_files/statdocs/agr_eccis.pdf.

Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice, E C O W A S C J

• Protocol A/P.1/7/91 on the Community Court of Justice, adopted July 6, 1991. Accra, E C O W A S, Abuja, 1991. www.courtecowas.org/basic-texts/.

• Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 amending Protocol A/P.1/7/91 relating to the Community Court of Justice, adopted January 19, 2005. Accra, E C O W A S, 2005. www.courtecowas.org/basic-texts/.

• Rules of the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States. Abuja, E C O W A S C J, 2002. www.courtecowas.org/basic-texts/.

Eurasian Economic Union Court, E A E U C T

• Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union, adopted May 29, 2014, entered into force January 1, 2015), U N T S 3049 to 50.

• Statute of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, adopted May 29, 2014, entered into force January 1, 2015, U N T S 3049, at 167 to 88.

Table A3.1 ( - E)

Table A3.1 (cont. - E)Long description

Table A3.1e

They are as follows.

European Court of Human Rights, E C t H R

• European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted November 4, 1950, entered into force September 3, 1953, U N T S 213, at 221 to 70, as amended by Protocol Numbers 11 and 14, see E T S Number 5, see https://rm.coe.int/1680063765

• Statute of the Council of Europe, as amended, adopted May 5, 1949, entered into force August 3, 1949, U N T S 87, at 103 to 29.

• Rules of Court, adopted June 29, 2009, entered into force July 1, 2009. European Court of Human Rights. www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Library_2020_RoC_ENG.

European Free Trade Agreement Court, E F T A C

• Agreement between the E F T A States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, adopted May 2, 1992, entered into force January 1, 1993, amended March 17, 1993, Official Journal of the E U, 1994 L 344, at 3 to 13.

• Protocol 5 to the E S A/Court Agreement on the Statute of the E F T A Court, adopted May 2, 1992, entered into force January 1, 1993, amended August 10, 1996, March 25, 1999, December 8, 2010, Official Journal of the E U, 1994 L 344, at 68 to 71.

• Rules of Procedure, adopted January 4 and February 1, 1994, amended August 22, 1996, September 20, 2007, November 10, 2010. https://eftacourt.int/the-court/%20rules-of-procedure/.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights I A C t H R

• American Convention on Human Rights, adopted November 22, 1969, entered into force July 18, 1978, U N T S 1144, at 143 to 212.

• Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, O A S Res 448 9-0/79, O A S Official Records O E A/Ser P/9.0.2/80, Volume 1, p p 98 to 108.

• Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, adopted August 9, 1980, amended January 18, 1991, September 20, 1996, November 25, 2000, December 4, 2004, January 31, 2009. San Jose, I A C t H R. www.corteidh.or.cr/reglamento.cfm?lang¼en#_ftn2.

International Criminal Court, I C C

• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted July 17, 1998, entered into force July 1, 2002, amended November 30, 1999, May 8, 2000, January 17, 2001, January 16, 2002, U N T S 2187, at 90 to 158.

• Financial Regulations and Rules, adopted September 9, 2002, amended December 3, 2005, December 14, 2007, November 21, 2008 I C C-A S P/1/3 Part 2 D. The Hague, I C C, 2002. www.icc-cpi.int/news/financial-regulations-and-rules.

International Court of Justice, I C J

• Statute of the International Court of Justice, adopted June 26, 1945, entered into force October 24, 1945, U N C I O 15, at 355 to 64.

• Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations, adopted July 1, 2013. S T/S G B/2013/4. New York, U N, 2013. https://policy.un.org/policy-doc/29543.

Table A3.1 ( - F)

Table A3.1 (cont. - F)Long description

Table A3.1f

They are as follows.

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, I C T R

• Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, adopted November 8, 1994, last amended December 16, 2009. U N Doc S/Res 955. New York, U N, 1994. https://unictr.irmct.org/sites/unictr.org/files/legal-library/100131_Statute_en_fr_0.pdf.

• Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted June 29, 1995, last amended May 13, 2015. Arusha, I C T R, 2015. http://unictr.unmict.org/sites/unictr.org/files/legallibrary/150513-rpe-en-fr.pdf.

International Criminal Tribunal of the Former Yugoslavia, I C T Y

• Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, adopted May 25, 1993, last amended July 7, 2009, U N Doc S/Res 827. New York, U N, 1993. www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_sept09_en.pdf.

• Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted February 11, 1994, last amended July 10, 2015. The Hague, I C T Y, 1994. www.icty.org/en/documents/rulesprocedure-evidence.

International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, I T L O S

• Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Annex 4 of U N Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted December 10, 1982, entered into force November 16, 1994, U N T S 1833, at 561 to 70.

• Financial Regulations and Rules, adopted June 15, 2004, entered into force January 1, 2005. S P L O S/120. New York, L O S Meeting of State Parties, 2004. www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/basic_texts/Financial.Regs.Rules.E.pdf.

• Rules of Procedure for Meetings of States Parties, adopted June 24, 2005, S P L O S/2/Rev 4. New York, L O S Meeting of State Parties, 2005. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/542002/files/SPLOS_2_Rev.4-EN.pdf?ln¼ru.

Mercosur Permanent Review Tribunal, P R T

• Olivos Protocol for the Settlement of Disputes in Mercosur, adopted on February 18, 2002, entered into force January 1, 2004, U N T S 2251, at 288 to 303.

• Additional Protocol to the Asuncion Treaty on the institutional structure of Mercosur, adopted December 17, 1994, entered into force December 15, 1995, U N T S 2145, at 346 to 59.

• Secretaria del Tribunal Permanente de Revision, Reglamentacion del Articulo 35 de la Decision, Resolucion G M C number 66/05. Montevideo, Secretaria del Mercosur, 2005, p p 88 to 93. www.tprmercosur.org/es/docum/adm/RES_66_05_es_Secretaria_TPR.pdf.

Table A3.1 ( - G)

Table A3.1 (cont. - G)Long description

Table A3.1g

They are as follows.

OHADA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration, C C J A

• Treaty on the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa, adopted October 17, 1993. www.ohada.com/traite/10/treaty-on-the-harmonisation-of-business-lawin-africa.html.

• Treaty related to the Revisions to the Treaty on the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa, adopted October 17, 2008. www.ohada.com/traite.html

• Rules of Procedure of the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration, adopted April 18, 1996. OHADA Official Journal Number 4 of November 1, 1997. www.ohada.com/texts-ohada/reglements-d-application.html

Southern African Development Community Tribunal, S A D C T

• Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, adopted August 17, 1992, entered into force October 5, 1993. International Legal Material 32, number 1, 1993, 116 to 35.

• Protocol on Tribunal in the Southern African Development Community, adopted August 7, 2000. www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/Protocol_on_the_Tribunal_and_Rules_thereof2000.pdf.

• Rules of Procedure of the Southern African Development Community Tribunal, adopted August 7, 2000. www.sadc.int/sites/default/files/2021-08/Protocol_on_the_Tribunal_and_Rules_thereof2000.pdf.

West African Economic and Monetary Union Court of Justice, W A E M U C J

• Revised Treaty on the West African Economic and Monetary Union, adopted January 10, 1994, entered into force August 1, 1994, amended January 29, 2003. www.uemoa.int/traite-modifie.

• Protocole Additionnel Number 1 relatif aux Organes de controle de l’U E M O A. www.uemoa.int/sites/default/files/bibliotheque/pages_-_protocole_additionnel_i.pdf.

• Acte additionnel number 10/96 du 10 mai 1996 de la Conference des Chefs d’Etat et de Gouvernement portant Statuts de la Cour de Justice de l’U E M O A. https://courdejusticeuemoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Statuts-CJ.pdf.

• Reglement number 1/96/C M portant Reglement des procedures de la Cour de Justice de l’U E M O A. https://courdejusticeuemoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/R%C3%A8glement-de-proc%C3%A9dure-Cour-de-Justice.pdf.

Table A3.1 ( - H)

Note: This table includes founding treaties and statutes that were used to code formal independence. Amendments to founding treaties and statutes are noted when relevant, if in force prior to 2015. Rules of procedure or regulations that were in force in 2015 are included above, if relevant for the coding. Earlier versions of rules of procedure (where relevant) were used for the coding but are not listed. English language texts were coded when available. French language texts listed above were coded by author. Spanish texts were coded by Spanish-speaking research assistants. Russian texts were coded by a Russian-speaking research assistant (although I list the text in English above). Secondary materials were used to code aspects of the Arab Investment Court, when Arabic-only texts could be identified. Founding treaties and statutes are listed first, followed by rules of procedure or other relevant regulations.

Table A3.1 (cont. - H)Long description

Table A3.1g

They are as follows.

World Trade Organization Appellate Body, W T O A B

• Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, adopted April 15, 1994, entered into force January 1, 1995, U N T S 1867 to 69.

• Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Annex 2 to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, adopted April 15, 1994, entered into force January 1, 1995, U N T S 1869, at 401 to 25.

• Establishment of the Appellate Body, decision of the Dispute Settlement Body, adopted February 10, 1995, W T/D S B/1.

• Working Procedures for Appellate Review, adopted August 16, 2010, W T/A B/ W P/6.

• Rules of conduct for the understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes, adopted December 11, 1996, W T/D S B/R C/1.

• Financial Regulation of the W T O, adopted February 27, 2015. W T/L/156/Rev 3.

Figure A4.1 Number of ECJ judgments by year (1953–1980).

Note: Illustration by author. The total number of judgments from 1953 to 1967 is 236. The total for 1953–72 is 478.

Data source: ECJ. Annual Report 1997: Synopsis of the Work of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Luxembourg: ECJ, 1997): 183, accessed June 23, 2024. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-07/rapportannuel1997en.pdf.

Figure A4.1Long description

A line graph with the vertical axis labeled number of judgments ranges from 0 to 140 in increments of 10. The horizontal axis spans from 1953 to 1980. The line starts near 0 in 1953 and gradually rises through the 1950s. It fluctuates with a peak near 50 in 1965, drops, then climbs again through the early 1970s. After a slight dip around 1974, the trend continues upward, reaches 100 in 1977, and peaks near 135 in 1979 before declining slightly in 1980.

Table A4.1Cross-tabulations of EACJ citation practices by deference (all cases)

Note: N = 88. This excludes cases where jurisdiction is affirmed or the case is remanded to the FI. In each cross-tabulation, the first number is the frequency and the second number (in parentheses) is the row percentage.

Table A4.1Long description

The table is split into three sections, which are declared violation, consequential order, and additional remedy. Each section shows how the presence or absence of these legal outcomes corresponds to whether the East African Court of Justice, E A C J, cited domestic or international legal references. Within each section, data is presented as the number of cases along with the corresponding percentage.

1. 1. Declared Violation

   In cases where no violation was declared, the following results were observed.

   • ▪ For domestic references, 29 cases, representing 49.15%, did not include a citation, whereas 30 cases, or 50.85%, did include one.

   • ▪ For international references, 31 cases, which account for 52.54%, did not include a citation, while 28 cases, or 47.46%, did.

   In cases where a violation was declared, the results were as follows.

   • ▪ For domestic references, 7 cases, representing 23.33%, did not include a citation, while 23 cases, or 76.67%, did.

   • ▪ For international references, 10 cases, or 33.33%, did not cite, whereas 20 cases, representing 66.67%, did include a citation.

   The results of statistical tests show the following.

   • ▪ For domestic references, Fisher’s Test returned a p-value equal to 0.023, significant at the 5% level, and the Chi-squared test gave a p-value of 0.017, also significant at the 5% level.

   • ▪ For international references, Fisher’s Test yielded a p-value of 0.116, which is not statistically significant, while the Chi-squared test produced a p-value of 0.083, marginally significant at the 10% level.

2. 2. Consequential Order

   In cases without a consequential order, the following patterns were identified.

   • ▪ For domestic references, 34 cases, or 45.95%, did not include a citation, and 40 cases, which represent 54.05%, did.

   • ▪ For international references, 37 cases, equalling 50.00%, did not include a citation, while another 37 cases, also 50.00%, did.

   In cases where a consequential order was issued, the results were as follows.

   • ▪ For domestic references, 2 cases, or 14.29%, did not cite, whereas 12 cases, which represent 85.71%, did include a citation.

   • ▪ For international references, 3 cases, or 21.43%, did not cite, and 11 cases, representing 78.57%, did.

   The significance tests revealed the following.

   • ▪ For domestic references, Fisher’s Test gave a p-value of 0.037, significant at the 5% level, and the Chi-squared test returned a p-value of 0.019, also significant at the 5% level.

   • ▪ For international references, Fisher’s Test produced a p-value of 0.077, which is marginally significant at the 10% level, and the Chi-squared test showed a p-value of 0.042, significant at the 5% level.

3. 3. Additional Remedy

   In cases where no additional remedy was issued, the findings were as follows.

   • ▪ For domestic references, 33 cases, or 47.83%, did not include a citation, while 36 cases, representing 52.17%, did.

   • ▪ For international references, 35 cases, or 50.72%, did not cite, whereas 34 cases, or 49.28%, did.

   In cases where an additional remedy was provided, the results were the following.

   • ▪ For domestic references, 3 cases, or 15.79%, did not include a citation, while 16 cases, representing 84.21%, did.

   • ▪ For international references, 5 cases, or 26.32%, did not cite, whereas 14 cases, or 73.68%, did include a citation.

   Results from statistical testing indicate the following.

   • ▪ For domestic references, the p-value from Fisher’s Test was 0.017, significant at the 5% level, and the Chi-squared test showed a p-value of 0.008, significant at the 1% level.

   • ▪ For international references, the p-value for Fisher’s Test was 0.072, marginally significant at the 10% level, and the Chi-squared test yielded 0.054, also marginally significant at the 10% level.

Table A4.2Annual percent of EACJ’s Facebook posts with at least one public legitimation narrative (people-centered or political purpose)

Table A4.2Long description

The data is organized by calendar year, covering the period from 2013 to 2020. It presents the annual percentage of the East African Court of Justice’s Facebook posts that contain at least one public legitimation narrative. These narratives are either people-centered or related to a political purpose. For each year, the percentage of posts that did or did not include at least one such narrative is shown, along with the total number of Facebook posts made in that year.

1. 1. In 2013, the overwhelming majority of posts, accounting for 98.1%, did not include a legitimation narrative, while only 1.9% of posts included at least one such narrative. The total number of posts that year was 52.

2. 2. In 2014, the share of posts with a narrative increased slightly. A total of 93.0% of posts did not include a narrative, while 7.0% did. The E A C J published 143 posts in total during that year.

3. 3. In 2015, the distribution was similar to the previous year. Posts without a narrative made up 93.5%, while those with a narrative constituted 6.5%. The total number of posts for the year was 46.

4. 4. In 2016, no posts included a legitimation narrative, meaning 100% of posts lacked one. There were 51 posts published that year.

5. 5. In 2017, 92.3% of posts did not include a narrative, while 7.7% did. The total number of posts published was 52.

6. 6. In 2018, there was a noticeable increase in narrative presence. Posts without a narrative made up 61.0%, and those with a narrative accounted for 39.0%. The court posted a total of 64 times.

7. 7. In 2019, 66.7% of posts did not include a narrative, while 33.3% did. The total number of posts that year was 24.

8. 8. In 2020, 82.3% of posts lacked a narrative, and 17.7% included one. The total number of posts for that year was 96.

Table A5.1Cross-tabulations of CCJ’s deference by support network (private or supranational actor)

Note: In each cross-tabulation, the first number is the frequency and the second number (in parentheses) is the column percentage.

Table A5.1Long description

The data is organized into four sections, namely applicant wins, violation declared, consequential order, and additional remedy. Each section explores how the Caribbean Court of Justice exercises deference based on whether a private or supranational actor participated in the case. The outcomes are classified according to whether the court deferred or not. The data is presented as the number of cases along with the corresponding percentage, and each section includes statistical test results to assess significance.

1. 1. Applicant wins, considering all decisions with a total number of cases equal to 18

   • In situations where the applicant did not win and the court deferred, 3 cases, which account for 37.50%, involved no participation from a private or supranational actor. In contrast, 6 cases, or 60.00%, included such participation.

   • Where the applicant won and the court did not defer, 5 cases, or 62.50%, occurred without any actor involvement, while 4 cases, equalling 40.00%, occurred with actor involvement.

   • Statistical testing using Fisher’s Test produced a p-value equal to 0.637, while the Chi-squared test resulted in a p-value of 0.341. These values indicate no statistically significant relationship.

2. 2. Violation declared, based on merit-only cases with a total number equal to 13

   • In cases where the court deferred and no violation was declared, there were no instances of cases without actor participation. Meanwhile, 5 cases, which represent 55.56%, included actor participation.

   • In contrast, when a violation was declared and the court did not defer, there were 5 cases with no actor involvement, amounting to 100.00%. Additionally, 4 cases, or 44.44%, had participation from a private or supranational actor.

   • The p-value from Fisher’s Test was 0.015, which is statistically significant at the 5% level. The Chi-squared test yielded a p-value of 0.068, which is marginally significant at the 10% level.

3. 3. Consequential order, based on merit-only cases with a total number equal to 9

   • When no consequential order was issued and the court deferred, 4 cases, or 80.00%, had no actor participation, and 3 cases, or 75.00%, involved actor participation.

   • When the court did issue a consequential order, 1 case, or 20.00%, had no actor involvement, and another 1 case, or 25.00%, included an actor.

   • Statistical analysis using Fisher’s Test resulted in a p-value of 1.000, while the Chi-squared test returned a p-value of 0.858. These values indicate no statistically significant relationship.

4. 4. Additional remedy, based on merits-only cases with a total number equal to 9

   • In cases where no additional remedy was provided and the court deferred, 3 cases, or 60.00%, lacked actor participation, while 2 cases, or 50.00%, included it.

   • In contrast, where an additional remedy was granted, 2 cases occurred without actor involvement, representing 40.00%, and another 2 cases, or 50.00%, involved an actor.

   • Both Fisher’s Test and the Chi-squared test showed no significant effect, with p-values of 1.000 and 0.764, respectively.

Table A5.2Cross-tabulation of CCJ citation practices by deference, including remedies (merits only)

Note: N = 14. In each cross-tabulation, the first number is the frequency and the second number (in parentheses) is the row percentage.

Table A5.2Long description

The table is organized into three main sections, namely declared violation, consequential order, and additional remedy. It examines the Caribbean Court of Justice’s citation behaviour in merits-only cases, particularly how deference is associated with the use of domestic references or international references. For each outcome, the number of cases and their corresponding percentages are provided, followed by the results of statistical tests to evaluate the strength of the relationships.

1. 1. Declared Violation, considering only merit-based cases

   When no violation was declared and the court deferred,

   • ▪ In the category of domestic references, there were 2 cases without citations, which represent 40.00%, and 3 cases with citations, which correspond to 60.00%.

   • ▪ In the category of international references, there was 1 case without a citation, equal to 20.00%, and 4 cases with citations, which equals 80.00%.

   When a violation was declared and the court did not defer,

   • ▪ For domestic references, 3 cases did not include citations, making up 33.33%, and 6 cases did include them, representing 66.67%.

   • ▪ For international references, all 9 cases included citations, amounting to 100.00%, and there were no cases without citations.

   The statistical analysis showed that the p-value from Fisher’s Test for domestic references was equal to 1.000, and the p-value from the Chi-squared test was 0.804. These results indicate no statistically significant relationship.

   For international references, Fisher’s Test yielded a p-value equal to 0.357, and the Chi-squared test produced a p-value of 0.138. These results are also not statistically significant.

2. 2. Consequential Order, again based on merit-only cases

   When the court deferred and did not issue a consequential order,

   • ▪ In the domestic reference category, there were 4 cases without citations, accounting for 33.33%, and 8 cases with citations, totalling 66.67%.

   • ▪ In the international reference category, there was 1 case without a citation, representing 8.33%, and 11 cases with citations, making up 91.67%.

   When the court did not defer and issued a consequential order,

   • ▪ For domestic references, there was an even distribution, with 1 case without a citation and 1 case with a citation, each comprising 50.00%.

   • ▪ For international references, both cases cited international sources, resulting in 100.00% with no cases lacking citations.

   In terms of statistical significance, Fisher’s Test for domestic references produced a p-value of 1.000, and the Chi-squared test returned a p-value of 0.655.

   For international references, both Fisher’s Test and the Chi-squared test produced p-values of 1.000 and 0.571, respectively, showing no significant differences.

3. 3. Additional Remedy, assessed for merits-only decisions

   When the court deferred and did not provide an additional remedy,

   • ▪ In the domestic reference category, 4 cases lacked citations, or 40.00%, while 6 cases included citations, totalling 60.00%.

   • ▪ In the international reference category, 1 case did not cite, amounting to 10.00%, and 9 cases did cite, accounting for 90.00%.

When the court did not defer and issued an additional remedy,

• ▪ Among domestic references, 1 case did not include a citation, which is 25.00%, and 3 cases did cite, which is 75.00%.

• ▪ In the international reference category, all 4 cases included citations, amounting to 100.00%, with none lacking a citation.

For domestic references, the p-value from Fisher’s Test was 1.000, and the Chi-squared test returned a p-value of 0.590.

For international references, Fisher’s Test again yielded a p-value of 1.000, and the Chi-squared test produced a value of 0.402. Both indicate no statistically significant association.

Table A6.1Cross-tabulation of ACtHPR’s unanimous decisions by deference

Note: In each cross-tabulation, the first number is the frequency and the second number (in parentheses) is the row percentage.

Table A6.1Long description

The table is split into two sections, including declared violation and consequential orders of the ACtHPR. Each section includes the number and percentage of unanimous decisions categorized by whether deference was applied, that is, no, reflecting deference or yes, and whether the decision was unanimous, that is, no or yes. Fisher’s Test and chi-square p-values are reported below each section.

1. 1. The data for declared violations are as follows.

   • When there was no declared violation and deference was not applied, the number of non-unanimous decisions was 3, which corresponds to 33.33%.

   • When there was no declared violation and deference was applied, the number of unanimous decisions was 6, which corresponds to 66.67%.

   • When a violation was declared and deference was not applied, the number of non-unanimous decisions was 13, which corresponds to 30.95%.

   • When a violation was declared and deference was non- applied, the number of unanimous decisions was 29, which corresponds to 69.05%.

   • Fisher’s Test p-value is 1.000.

   • Chi-square p-value is 0.889.

2. 2. The data for consequential order are as follows.

   • When there was no consequential order and deference was not applied, the number of non-unanimous decisions was 11, which corresponds to 29.73%.

   • When there was no consequential order and deference was applied, the number of unanimous decisions was 26, which corresponds to 70.27%.

   • When a consequential order was issued and deference was not applied, the number of non-unanimous decisions was 5, which corresponds to 35.71%.

   • When a consequential order was issued and deference was not applied, the number of unanimous decisions was 9, which corresponds to 64.29%.

   • Fisher’s Test p-value is 0.742.

   • Chi-square p-value is 0.683.

Figure A7.1 Council of Europe political fragmentation (1959–2023).

Note: Calculations and illustration by author.

Data source: Coppedge et al., “V-Dem [Country-Year] Dataset V12.”

Figure A7.1Long description

A line graph with the vertical axis labeled coefficient of variation (percent) ranges from 10 to 35 in increments of 5. The horizontal axis spans from 1960 to 2020 in increments of 2. Electoral democracy (dashed line) fluctuates between 15 and 25 until 1990, then rises, peaking above 30 around 2010. Civil liberties (solid line) remain between 10 and 20 with minor variation, rising slightly after 1995. Rule of law (dotted line) stays near 15 until 1990, then rises sharply, peaking above 35 around 2005, and fluctuates near 30 afterward

Figure A7.2 ECtHR merits deference rate by year (1960–2020).

Note: Illustration by author. Data based on all judgments by a Chamber, Grand Chamber, Plenary Court (before 1998) or a committee (after 2010). Line gaps are due to the absence of merits judgments in relevant year.

Acknowledgment: I thank Øyvind Stiansen for assistance with these data.

Data source: Stiansen, Øyvind, and Erik Voeten, “ECtHR Judgments.” Georgetown/PluriCourts European Court of Human Rights Database (2019). Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OBYUO5.

Figure A7.2Long description

A line graph with the vertical axis labeled merit deference rate (percent), ranging from 0 to 80 in increments of 20. The horizontal axis spans from 1960 to 2020 in increments of 2. The line begins near 35 in the 1960s, briefly drops to 0 in 1971, then spikes to over 80 in 1976. It fluctuates between 20 and 65 from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, then gradually declines. From 2000 onward, the rate drops sharply, hovering below 20 with fluctuations, and ends around 22 in 2020.