The role of the African Commission in enhancing implementation monitoring through dialogue and documentation

This article examines how the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights may use two critical tools - dialogue and documentation - in order to improve implementation of its decisions. Dialogue is understood as conversation between the African Commission and national actors. Implementation documentation is understood as the process of putting in place a publicly accessible database on the communications finalised by the Commission, the recommendations contained in those communications and any possible implementation measures taken by states. Several studies have demonstrated that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have a role to play in monitoring the implementation of their decisions. In Africa, judicial monitoring is crucial due to the ineffectiveness of political monitoring by African Union policy organs. While the African Commission has several tools to choose from in monitoring the implementation of its decisions, this article focuses on dialogue and documentation. The African Commission is an adept user of dialogue through the state reporting process (which has been described as a form of 'constructive dialogue'), implementation hearings, promotional visits to states and other dialogue-based processes. However, there is a general lack of consistency, coherence and clarity in how the Commission uses these tools in monitoring the implementation of its decisions. While these tools may appear overly political, the African Commission is by design mandated to interface with national political actors as a direct consequence of its promotional mandate under article 45 of the African Charter. Using a combination of desk research and document analysis, based on existing scholarship in this area of law, this article argues that dialogue and implementation documentation are requisites for monitoring state compliance with decisions of the Commission. It further argues that the African Commission is better suited (compared to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights) to these discursive and dialogic processes as a result of its institutional design. Effective use of these processes could turn states from acting or positioning themselves as 'uncooperative and reluctant bystanders' to gradually becoming cooperative and enthusiastic compliance partners.