Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CCPR - Zambia

Complete list of decisions

Case Name Comm Number Date Articles Outcome
Bwalya v. Zambia 314/1988 21 March 1991   Admissible
Bwalya v. Zambia 314/1988 14 July 1993 9(1, 3), 12(1), 19, 25, 26 Violation
Kalenga v. Zambia 326/1988 27 July 1993 9(2-4), 12(1), 10(1), 19 Violation
Lubuto v. Zambia 390/1990 31 October 1995 6(2), 7, 14(3c, 5) Violation
Mukunto v. Zambia 768/1997 23 July 1999 14(1) Violation
Chongwe v. Zambia 821/1998 25 October 2000 6(1), 9(1) Violation
Silva, Godwin, de Silva and Perera v. Zambia 825-828/1998 25 July 2002   Inadmissible
Chambala v. Zambia 856/1999 15 July 2003 2(3), 9(1, 5) Violation
Chisanga v. Zambia 1132/2002 18 October 2005 2, 6(2, 4), 7, 14(5) Violation
Mwamba v. Zambia 1520/2006 10 March 2010 2(3)(a), 6(1), 7, 10(1), 14(2), 14(3)(c), 14(5) Violation
Kamoyo v. Zambia 1859/2009 23 March 2012 6, 7, 14(3c, 5) Violation
Chiti v. Zambia 1303/2004 26 July 2012 2(3), 6, 7, 14(3g), 17, 23(1) Violation
E.M.M. v. Zambia 1145/2002 30 March 2016 N/A Admissable (discontinued)

Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.

CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

  1. requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
  2. decisions to deal jointly with cases
  3. admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
  4. final views.

Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".