Les limitations de l’accès à internet en Afrique à l’aune de la Communication 742/20, African Freedom of Expression Exchange et 15 autres (représenté par FOI Attorneys) c. Algérie et 27 autres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intentional limitation of telecommunications services and internet access on various grounds infringes a broad range of fundamental rights, including freedoms of expression and information, which are necessary in a free and democratic society in the digital age. In a fundamental right approach, states, when resorting to restrictive laws, have the positive obligation to specify, rigorously, their legal necessity, using legistics and ethics of proportion, even if it is laws pursuing legitimate goal to protect public order or national security. Then how can we analyse the decision by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to declare inadmissible the Communication by 16 non-governmental organizations, against 28 African States that had interrupted or limited digital access, probably without meeting the requirements of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the African Charter? This contribution discusses the merits of the issue of digital rights, which the African Commission had not been able to examine, due to a lack of specific and substantive allegations and evidence. More specifically, what are the compelling circumstantial indicators of infringement of the freedoms of expression and information on the internet, when the alleged risks of impeding democratic electoral processes are weighed against the imperative need to safeguard national security or public order? It is regrettable that the African Commission was not able to deal with such an important issue simply because it hastily assessed the criteria for admissibility of the petition, thus depriving the complainants of the legal opportunity to clarify the substance of their complaint. Considering, moreover, that the African Commission is a human rights promotion and protection body, the exclusion of ‘entities’ not party to the African Charter, which is entirely justified, does not deprive it of the legal clarifications required when there is reason to believe that they may be responsible for the violations reported.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".