customs in force; b) The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal. 104. Article 7.1 deals with the right to have one’s cause heard, which comprises, inter alia (a) the right to appeal to competent national organs against acts violating their rights, and (b) the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court or tribunal. 105. In the present communication, the victim went to the courts of the Respondent State. The courts ruled in his favour against the deportation order. The victim petition the Supreme Court for enforcement of his right to practice his profession after his accreditation was rejected, but before the latter could hear the application, the Respondent State deported him. Could it be said that the victim’s right to have his cause heard was violated by the Respondent State? 106. The right to have one’s cause heard requires that the victims have unfettered access to competent jurisdiction to hear their case. A tribunal which is competent in law to hear a case must have been given that power by law: it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person, and the trial is being conducted within any applicable time limit prescribed by law. Where the competent authorities put obstacles on the way which prevents victims from accessing the competent tribunals, they would be held liable. These are the issues which must be borne out [sic] by the evidence to warrant the Commission’s findings of a violation. 107. In the present communication, it is clear that the Respondent State did not want the victim to be heard in the Supreme Court. To ensure that this happened, the Respondent State deported him out of the country before the date scheduled for the hearing, thus effectively preventing him from being heard. Admittedly, the victim could still have proceeded against the Respondent State from wherever he was deported to, but by suddenly deporting him the Respondent State frustrated the judicial process that had been initiated. 108. To this extent, the Respondent State is found to have violated Article 7.1.a of the African Charter. 109. Regarding the allegations concerning the violation of Article 7.1.b, the Commission finds that the deportation was effected in disregard of several High Court orders. The Immigration officers refused, or failed to produce Mr Meldrum as was ordered by the Court. By doing so they denied him the right to be heard by a competent and impartial tribunal. Instead they acted under the Immigration Act without affording him an opportunity to defend himself. The actions of the Respondent State amounted to a conclusion that Mr Meldrum was guilty of the allegations against him, contrary to the presumption of innocence. The Commission finds that the conduct of the Respondent State amounted to a violation of Article 7.1.b as alleged by the Complainants. Alleged violation of Article 9 110. With respect to allegations of violation of Article 9 of the African Charter, guaranteeing freedoms of expression, the Complainants submit that the deportation of Mr Meldrum deprived him of his rights to receive information, and disseminate his opinions, as well as the right of the general citizenry to receive information. 111. Article 9.1 of the African Charter provides that every individual shall have the right to receive information. Article 9.2 states that “every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law”. Does the deportation of the victim violate his right to freedom of expression? 112. It should be recalled that the victim’s deportation arose from the publication of an article that the Respondent State did not appreciate. The Respondent State resorted to deportation in order to silence him, in spite [of] a court order that he can stays [sic] in the country. Admittedly, he is not prevented from expressing himself wherever he was deported to, but vis-à-vis his status in the Respondent