16 Summary of judgment • Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognized the right to nationality. The court noted that unreasonable denial of the right to nationality was incompatible with the right to human dignity. It noted further the expression ‘legal status’ in article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights included the right to nationality. • The applicant had maintained that he was a Tanzanian national and that his parents were Tanzanian by birth. To that effect he produced a copy of his birth certificate and the emergency travel document issued to him pending issuance of his passport. The applicant’s mother testified that he was born in Buguma Estate in Tanzania and that her name appeared in his birth certificate as his mother. The court held that the fact that the birth certificate showed that the applicant was born in Tanzania established a presumption on the applicant’s birth and it was for the respondent to rebut the presumption. • The court held that documentary evidence including a certified copy of the applicant’s birth certificate showed that the applicant was Tanzanian and the respondent had been unable to prove otherwise. Therefore, it held that the applicant’s right to nationality had been violated by the respondent. • Initially, the applicant had been detained under domestic criminal laws for having entered and stayed in Tanzania unlawfully. After serving the two years imprisonment sentence imposed by the court, he remained in prison. Therefore, the court found that the respondent had violated the applicant’s right to liberty under article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. • Given the finding that the applicant was a Tanzanian national, it followed that the applicant had the right to free movement. The applicant had remained in prison even after having served his full sentence and the respondent had not provided a justification for the restrictions placed on the applicant’s freedom of movement. The court held that the applicant’s arrest and continued detention were a violation of article 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. • Article 1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights conferred on the Charter its legally binding character meaning that a violation of any right under the Charter meant a violation of article 1 of the Charter. The court held that the provision had been violated because it had found that there had been violations of the applicant’s right to liberty, nationality, security of his person and the right not to be unlawfully detained. The court awarded the applicant 10 million Tanzanian shillings for the moral damage he had suffered at the date of the judgment and 300,000 Tanzanian shilling for every month he remained in detention, after the date of the judgment being notified to the respondent, until the applicant was released. The court awarded the applicant’s mother 5 million Tanzanian shillings as an indirect victim. The court also ordered for the applicant to be released immediately. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST