Mmesomachukwu Cynthia Ndubueze-Nduka*
Introduction
This case review examines the judgment of the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) in Alex Nain Saab Moran v. Republic of Cape Verde, delivered in 2020. The decision is significant for several reasons. First, it clarifies the legal status of INTERPOL Red Notices within the framework of regional and international human rights law, affirming that such notices do not, on their own, constitute valid international arrest warrants. Second, it reinforces the ECOWAS Court’s expansive human rights jurisdiction, particularly in matters involving arrest, detention, and extradition. Third, it addresses the interaction between diplomatic immunity claims and the obligation of States to respect fundamental rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Facts
The Applicant, Alex Nain Saab Moran, is a Venezuelan national who was travelling as a special envoy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on an official mission to Iran. On 12 June 2020, his aircraft made a technical stop for refuelling in Cape Verde. During this stop, he was arrested by Cape Verdean authorities based on an INTERPOL Red Notice issued at the request of the United States, which alleged his involvement in money laundering and related offences.
Following his arrest, the Applicant was detained, and extradition proceedings were initiated against him. He contended that his arrest was carried out without a valid domestic arrest warrant, that the INTERPOL Red Notice did not constitute a sufficient legal basis for deprivation of liberty, and that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity as a special envoy. He further alleged that his continued detention violated his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, particularly Articles 6 and 7.
The Applicant approached the ECOWAS Court seeking declarations that his arrest and detention were unlawful, an order for his immediate release, and compensation for the alleged violations of his human rights.
Issues for Determination
The court identified and considered the following issues:
- Whether the Court had jurisdiction under Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol to entertain the application alleging violations of human rights by a Member State;
- Whether the application was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, having regard to Articles 9(4) and 10(d) of the Supplementary Protocol and the Court’s jurisprudence;
- Whether the circumstances of the case justified the grant of interim measures, pending the determination of the substantive application, and
- Whether the Applicant’s diplomatic status and personal circumstances, including the risk of irreparable harm and his medical condition, warranted protective measures restraining extradition and modifying the conditions of his detention.
Decision of the Court
On the issue of jurisdiction, the Court affirmed its competence under Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol to adjudicate claims alleging violations of human rights by Member States of ECOWAS. It reiterated its settled jurisprudence that the mere allegation of a violation of human rights in an ECOWAS Member State is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court.
On the objection concerning the alleged non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court reaffirmed its established jurisprudence that, in human rights matters brought pursuant to Articles 9(4) and 10(d) of the Supplementary Protocol, exhaustion of domestic remedies is not a condition precedent to seising the Court. The Court further held that it is not bound by the provisions of Article 56(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and that, for an action to be substantiated, it is sufficient that the Applicant establishes victim status and that the Respondent State is responsible for the alleged violation.
With respect to the Applicant’s request for interim measures, the Court considered whether the circumstances of the case warranted the adoption of provisional protective measures pending the determination of the substantive application. It reiterated that interim measures may be granted where there is a risk of irreparable harm, particularly in situations involving deprivation of liberty, threatened extradition, or serious risks to health or personal safety. The Court observed that the arguments advanced in support of the alleged infringement of the Applicant’s right to liberty and security were matters to be determined on the merits and that, at that stage, it was not required to make a definitive pronouncement on them.
However, in light of the parties’ admission as to the date of the Applicant’s arrest while in transit on a trip to Iran, the Court found it justified to consider that the Applicant was on a mission as a Special Envoy and therefore enjoyed immunity and inviolability. The Court took into account the Applicant’s diplomatic status, the fact that the Venezuelan authorities had informed the Respondent State of this status following his arrest, and the Applicant’s medical condition. It held that there existed a situation of imminent damage necessitating the urgent protection of the human rights to which the Applicant was entitled. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Respondent State to place the Applicant under permanent home detention, under the supervision of its national judicial authorities, in order to ensure improved conditions of accommodation, access to appropriate medical care, and visits compatible with the Applicant’s personal circumstances, all at the Applicant’s expense. The Court further directed that the Applicant should not be extradited to any third State until a final decision had been rendered on the merits of the case
Conclusion
The decision in Alex Nain Saab Moran v. Republic of Cape Verde reaffirms the ECOWAS Court’s broad human rights jurisdiction and its settled position that exhaustion of domestic remedies is not a prerequisite in human rights cases. The Court’s grant of interim measures demonstrates its readiness to intervene where there is a risk of imminent harm, particularly in cases involving detention, threatened extradition, and diplomatic status. By ordering permanent home detention under judicial supervision and restraining extradition pending a determination on the merits, the Court sought to preserve the Applicant’s rights while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
*Law Graduate/Researcher
