State, which is a State Party to the African Charter, his ability to express himself as guaranteed under Article 9 was violated. Alleged violation of Article 12 (4) 113. In the same vein, the deportation of the victim by the Respondent State amounts to a violation of Article 12.4 of the African Charter, which provides that “a non-national legally admitted in a territory of a State Party to the present Charter, may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law”. 114. The African Commission notes that the import of this provision under the African Charter is to ensure that due process is followed before legally admitted non-nationals are expelled from a Member State. In the Union Inter Africaine des Droits de l’Homme, Federation Internationale des Ligues des 13 Droits de l’Homme and Others v. Angola case , the African Commission stated that although African States may expel non-nationals from their territories, the measures that they take in such circumstances should not be taken at the detriment of the enjoyment of human rights, and that while the Charter does not bar a State’s right to deport non-nationals per se, it does require deportations to 14 take place in a manner consistent with the due process of law. 115. The African Charter’s requirement of due process as outlined above is also shared by similar systems elsewhere. The Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for instance, had expressed a similar concern over the treatment of aliens being deported from Switzerland when it held the latter liable for degrading treatment and use of excessive 15 force resulting on some occasions in the death of the deportee during deportation of aliens. The Committee recommended that Switzerland should “ensure that all cases of forcible deportation are carried out in a manner which is compatible with Article 6 and Article 7 of the Covenant” and 16 that “restraint methods do not affect the life and physical integrity of the persons concerned”. 116. Very clearly, the situation as presented by the Respondent State did not afford the victim due process of law for protection of his rights. The Respondent State ignored the court orders that he be allowed to stay in the country. The African Commission thus holds the Respondent State in violation of the provisions of Article 12.4 of the African Charter. Alleged violation of Article 26 117. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 26, the Complainants argue that by refusing to comply with court decisions, the Respondent State not only violated Article 7, but also violated Article 26. Article 26 of the Charter provides that State Parties shall have the duty “...to guarantee the independence of the courts…”. The Complainants argue further that the deportation is in violation of Articles 7.a and 7.b as read together with Article 26 of the Charter, noting that Article 7 gives meaning to the individual right, whilst Article 26 emphasises on the importance of ensuring the independence and integrity of the institutions which give effect to the right in Article 7. 118. It is impossible to ensure the rule of law, upon which human rights depend, without guaranteeing that courts and tribunals resolve disputes both of a criminal and civil character free of any form of pressure or interference. The alternative to the rule of law is the rule of power, which is typically arbitrary, self-interested and subject to influences which may have nothing to do with the applicable law or the factual merits of the dispute. Without the rule of law and the assurance that 17 comes from an independent judiciary, it is obvious that equality before the law will not exist. 119. It is a vital requirement in a state governed by law that court decisions be respected by the State, as well as individuals. The courts need the trust of the people in order to maintain their authority and legitimacy. The credibility of the courts must not be weakened by the perception that courts can be influenced by any external pressure.