The Centre for Human Rights has been involved in different capacities in litigation before international, regional and sub-regional monitoring bodies. The portfolio of cases in which the Centre has been involved in include:
Decided cases
The Centre for Human Rights has participated in the following cases that has been decided by the international, regional and sub-regional human rights monitoring bodies.
United Nations Human Rights Committee
Communication No. 1474/2006: Prince v South Africa
The Centre acted as counsel for Gareth Prince who contested the refusal to grant an exemption for the use of cannabis to bona fide Rastafarians.
African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
Child Rights and Rehabilitation Network (CRARN), Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) and Centre for Human Rights (on behalf of Children Affected by Witchcraft Accusations in Nigeria) v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Communication No. 0017/Com/001/2021)
Decision on Merit
Admissibility Ruling
Case summary
The case challenged Nigeria's failure to protect children who had been accused of witchcraft and subjected to abandonment, physical and psychological abuse, torture, social exclusion, and denial of education and healthcare, particularly in Akwa Ibom and Cross River States. The communication was jointly filed by the Child Rights and Rehabilitation Network (CRARN), the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), and the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria on behalf of affected children. The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child found that Nigeria had violated the rights to life, survival and development, non-discrimination, education, and protection from abuse and torture under the African Children's Charter. The decision requires Nigeria to strengthen legal protections, investigate and prevent witchcraft-related abuses, and implement measures to protect children from harmful traditional practices.
Michelo Hansungule (on behalf of children in Northern Uganda) v The Government of Uganda,1/Com/001/2005, Decided April 2013, African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
The Centre for Human Rights (University of Pretoria) & La Rencontre Africaine Pour la Defense des Droits de l’Homme (Senegal) v Government of Senegal, 3/Com/001/2012, Decided 15 April 2014, African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, available at . The Northern Uganda case was the first case ever submitted to the African Children’s Rights Committee.
African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Press Statement: Centre for Human Rights
Summary: This landmark judgment concerned widespread violence, killings and discrimination against persons with albinism in Tanzania. The African Court found that Tanzania had violated a number of rights protected under the African Charter and ordered extensive structural remedies, including legislative reform, improved protection, public education and reparations. The Centre for Human Rights acted as an applicant together with the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) and the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC), advancing arguments on the State's obligations to prevent discrimination, protect vulnerable groups and ensure accountability.
Request for advisory opinions
The Centre has prepared and submitted two requests for advisory opinions to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Both applications were rejected by the court on the basis that the applicants’ observer status before the African Commission does not qualify them as ‘African organisations recognized by the African Union’, which can only be obtained through observer status or MOU with the African Union Commission. The advisory opinions submitted by the Centre are:
The Centre for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria and Coalition of African Lesbians
Amicus curie application
Request for Advisory Opinion, Request No 002/2015, Decided 28 September 2018, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, concerning the interpretation of ‘consider’ in article 59(3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, decision available at. The case concerns an attempt by the AU Executive Council to erode the autonomy of the African Commission, in the context of the African Commission having granted observer status to CAL, and the Executive Council directing the African Commission to reverse its decision.
The Centre for Human Rights, Federation of Women Lawyers Kenya, Women’s Legal Centre, Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre, Zimbabwe women Lawyers Association, Request for Advisory Opinion, Request No 001/2016, Decided 28 September 2018, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The application attempts to get some clarity about the consequences of article 6(d) of the Maputo Protocol, which provides that every marriage must be "recorded in writing and registered in accordance with national laws, in order to be legally recognised." In their request for an advisory opinion, the applicants acknowledge that marriage registration requirements are important, but requested clarity about potentially harsh consequences of the lack of recognition of unregistered marriages.
Amicus Curiae submissions
The Centre prepared and submitted an amicus brief in the cases of:
Lohe Issa Konate v Burkina Faso , Merits, Application No. 004/2013, Decided 5 December 2014
Request for Advisory Opinion No 001/2013: Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)
Request No 001/2018: Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU)
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Communication 255/02: Prince v South Africa
(The Centre prepared the case submission and represented Gareth Prince before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights)
Communication 313/05: Kenneth Good v Republic of Botswana
(The Centre submitted an amicus curiae brief in this case)
Communication 288/04: Gabriel Shumba v Zimbabwe
(The Centre acted as counsel for Gabriel Shumba in this case before the African Commission)
Communication 383/10 Mohammed Abdullah Saleh Al-Asad v The Republic of Djibouti, (Centre appearing as amicus curiae)
Decisions on Communications
The Centre in collaboration with partner institutions, submitted an amicus curiae application before the African Commission in a case of enforced disappearance pending against Djibouti. The aim of this application was to assist the Commission with information on the standard of proof in cases of enforced disappearances, where the victim in most cases does not have access to essential evidence. The African Commission had initially ruled the case inadmissible on grounds that the applicant could not conclusively prove that he was indeed detained within the jurisdiction of Djibouti and hence we felt strongly that requiring a victim of enforced disappearance to provide “conclusive” proof was too high a standard especially at the admissibility stage since the state is usually the only entity which has access to such evidence in cases of enforced disappearances.
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Kenya, App. No. 006/2012, Reparations, (CHR appearing at amicus)
The Centre and the Human Rights Implementation Centre, University of Bristol submitted an amicus curiae brief to the African Court highlighting some of the issues that need to be taken into consideration by the Court in deciding on the nature and specificity of reparations to order as well as the follow-up process.
ECOWAS Court
The Centre prepared and argued (through one of its staff members) a case before the ECOWAS Court of Justice, on behalf of RADDHO (ECW/CCJ/APP/03/12).This case concerned the attempt by the incumbent President to extend his presidential tenure to a third term.
Download Case ECW/CCJ/APP/03/12
East African Court of Justice
Our attempt to be admitted as an amicus before the East African Court of Justice failed in respect of Reference No. 6 of 2014
Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (HRAPF) v Attorney General of Uganda.
Inter-American Court of Justice
Antonio Tavares Pereira et al. v. Brazil (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2024)
The case arose from the fatal shooting of Antônio Tavares Pereira and the injury of 185 members of Brazil's Landless Rural Workers' Movement (MST) during a peaceful demonstration for agrarian reform in 2000. The Inter-American Court held that Brazil violated the rights to life, personal integrity, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection by using excessive force and failing to effectively investigate and prosecute those responsible. The Court ordered reparations, including compensation, renewed investigations, and reforms to policing practices. The Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria co-authored a joint amicus curiae brief with Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights (RFKHR), the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), the Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Africa (CHRDA), Odhikar, the National Union of Institutions for Social Action Work (UNITAS), the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR), and JOINT–Ligas de ONGs em Moçambique, advocating for stronger protections of freedom of association, peaceful assembly, and accountability for excessive use of force against protesters.
Inter-American Commission referral and case summary
IACHR – Antonio Tavares Pereira et al. v. Brazil
IACHR Admissibility Report No. 96/09:
Official Admissibility Report
Joint amicus curiae (including the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria):
Amicus Curiae Brief
Domestic: South Africa
Although the Centre has been less involved in litigation at the domestic (South African) level, we have taken steps in two domains: the first is assistance to complainants before the South African Equality Courts (where formal legal representation is not required); the second is the submission of amicus curiae-type briefs
Democratic Alliance v Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution Intervening) (83145/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 53; 2017 (3) SA 212 (GP); [2017] 2 All SA 123 (GP); 2017 (1) SACR 623 (GP) (22 February 2017).
The case was brought by the Democratic Alliance against the government of South Africa on the unconstitutionality of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute without prior public consultation. The decision in this case eventually led to the government withdrawing its notice of withdrawal from the Rome Statute and effectively re-joining the ICC.
Werner van Wyk and Others v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (2025) ZACC 20 (Case Summary)
Centre for Human Rights Press Release
Constitutional Court judgment
Summary and Centre involvement: The case challenged South Africa’s parental leave framework under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Constitutional Court confirmed that the legislation unfairly discriminated between different categories of parents and failed to recognise the equal caregiving responsibilities of fathers, adoptive parents and commissioning parents. The Centre for Human Rights participated as a joint amicus curiae with the Solidarity Centre South Africa, the International Lawyers Assisting Workers Network (ILAW Network) and the Labour Research Service. The Centre's submissions drew on comparative and international human rights law relating to equality, non-discrimination and parental leave, assisting the Court in developing a rights-based interpretation of parental leave legislation.
Embrace Project NPC and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (CCT 314/24)
Centre for Human Rights Press statement
Summary and the Centre's involvement: This matter challenged the constitutionality of provisions of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 governing rape, sexual assault and consent. The applicants contend that the Act permits an accused person to avoid criminal liability where they subjectively, but unreasonably, believed that the complainant had consented, thereby inadequately protecting survivors of sexual violence. In September 2024, the Gauteng Division of the High Court declared several provisions of the Act unconstitutional, holding that they failed to criminalise sexual violence in circumstances where there was no objectively reasonable belief in consent. The Court found that the impugned provisions infringed the constitutional rights to dignity, equality, bodily and psychological integrity, and freedom and security of the person.
The Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, together with the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA), was admitted as a joint amicus curiae, represented by Lawyers for Human Rights. The amici made expert submissions on the psychology of sexual violence, including common trauma responses such as freezing, tonic immobility and delayed reporting, and argued that the law should adopt an objective standard for assessing belief in consent that is consistent with constitutional rights and international human rights standards. The case has been heard by the Constitutional Court and judgement is pending.
Domestic Legal Advocacy
Abortion Support South Africa // South African Pharmacy Council
Open Letter and Legal Opinion on Pharmacists Refusing to Dispense Abortifacients (2024)
SAPC e-Note
In September 2024, the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, joined Abortion Support South Africa, Ipas South Africa, SECTION27, Lawyers for Human Rights, the Legal Resources Centre, the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, the Women's Legal Centre, Gender DynamiX, Triangle Project, Marie Stopes South Africa, the Independent Community Pharmacy Association, and the Sexual and Reproductive Justice Coalition in issuing an open letter and legal opinion to the South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) and the National Department of Health (NDOH). The letter argued that pharmacists, as indirect healthcare providers, may not rely on conscientious objection to refuse to dispense prescribed abortifacients, as such refusals are inconsistent with the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act, the National Clinical Guideline, and the Constitution, and called for clear regulatory guidance to protect access to safe and legal abortion services. In response, the SAPC issued an e-Note on 23 December 2024 confirming that pharmacists may not refuse to dispense misoprostol for medical abortions based on personal, moral, or religious beliefs, reminding pharmacists that they must act in the best interests of patients, respect patients' reproductive autonomy, and comply with their professional and ethical obligations under the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act and the Pharmacy Act.
Pending Cases
The Centre is currently involved in the following cases pending before the African Court and African Commission:
Communication 726/19: Gregory Chifire v Zambia
The Centre is part of the legal team of the applicant in this case currently before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights relating to the freedom of expression and right to fair trial. Submissions on admissibility have recently been filed on behalf of the applicant
Joint Amicus Curiae on States' Obligations in the Climate Change Crisis (African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, 2025)
In June 2025, the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights submitted a joint amicus curiae brief to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights in support of the request for an advisory opinion on States' obligations in relation to the climate change crisis. The brief drew on regional and international jurisprudence to assist the Court in developing African human rights standards on climate change, with a particular focus on States' obligations to protect environmental human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples, women, and other vulnerable communities disproportionately affected by climate change. It also urged the Court to encourage States to strengthen legal protections for environmental defenders, including measures to prevent reprisals, address Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), and enhance corporate human rights and environmental due diligence.