African Commission bears this in mind in addressing the different heads of the alleged violation of Article 7 of the African Charter as contended herein. 182. Before addressing the question of whether article 7 of the African Charter has been violated or not, it will perhaps be useful to start by considering the meaning and purpose of the doctrine of functus officio and the current trend of the law in relation to its application in the context of judicial decision making 183. AC HP R processes by apex courts. From the authorities54 reviewed, the doctrine of functus officio provides that once a decision maker has done everything necessary to perfect his or her decision, he or she is then barred from revisiting that decision, other than to correct clerical or other minor errors. The policy rationale underlying this doctrine is the need for finality in proceedings. 184. For the doctrine of functus officio to be engaged, it is necessary that the decision in issue be final. In the context of judicial decision making, a decision may be described as final only when “it leaves nothing to be judicially determined or ascertained thereafter, in order to render it effective and capable of execution, and is absolute, complete and certain”.55 185. The modern trend of the law is to invest apex Courts with “Review Jurisdiction” by which the Court may review a decision made or given by it on Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848, at pages 861–862; President of the Republic of South Africa v SARFU,(1999) ZACC 11; 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC); Turquieza v. Hernando, 97 SCRA 483 (1980); Heirs of Patriaca v. Court of Appeals, 124 SCRA 410 (1983); Edra v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 344 (1989) 55 Kurukkal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) 2009 FC 695, [2010] 3 F.C.R. 195 54 50