action.”14 The Commission further expounded on this by noting that the principle behind the requirement under this provision of the African Charter is to desist from faulting member states twice for the same alleged violations of human rights.15 67. In the present Communication, the Respondent State avers that by virtue of the fact that the matters raised in the Communication were definitively ruled on by the East African Court of Justice in the Katabazi case, the issues raised in the Communication are res judicata. The Complainants, on the other hand, contend that the Victims withdrew instructions and their participation before the East African Court. 68. In determining whether the present Communication meets the requirement of Article 56(7), the Commission is guided by its jurisprudence in Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v. Cameroon, in which it held that “the African Commission states that for a matter to fall within the scope of Article 56(7) of the African Charter it should have involved the same parties, the same issues raised by the complaint before the African Commission, and must have been settled by an international or regional mechanism.”16 Further, in Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v. Sudan, the Commission held that “the mechanisms envisaged under Article 56(7) of the Charter must be capable of granting declaratory or compensatory relief to victims, not mere political resolutions and declarations.”17 69. The initial issue to be determined by the Commission is whether the East African Court of Justice (hereafter the East African Court) is one of the mechanisms envisaged under Article 56(7) of the Charter. To this end, the Commission notes that the East African Court, one of the organs of the East African Community established under Article 9 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community,18 is “[…] a judicial body which shall ensure the adherence to law in the interpretation and application of and compliance with this Treaty.”19 Further, the Commission notes that, following consideration of a reference,20 the Court shall deliver a reasoned judgment in public session,21 and that “execution of a judgment of the Court which imposes a pecuniary obligation on a person shall be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the Partner State in which execution is to take place,” 22 which indicates that the East African Court is capable of granting both declaratory and compensatory relief to victims. From the above, the Commission is of the view that 14 Communication No. 260/02: Bakweri Land Claims Committee v. Cameroon (2004) ACHPR para 52. See also, August Reinisch, The Use And Limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as Procedural Tools to Avoid Conflicting Dispute Settlement Outcomes, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2004, 50- 51. 15 Id, para 52 16 Communication 266/03: para 86 17 Communication 279/03, 296/05: Sudan Human Rights Organization & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Sudan (2009) ACHPR para 105 18 http://www.eacj.org/establishment.php 19 Article 23, Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community 20 “A reference by a Partner State, the Secretary General or any person under Articles 28, 29, 30 respectively of the Treaty shall be instituted by presenting to the Court an application;” Rule 24, The East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2010 21 Article 35, Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community 22 Article 44, Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community 12