Merits Submission from the Complainant 28. The Complainant submits that the Kingdom of Swaziland signed the African Charter in 1991. The significance of the signing is that the Kingdom declared an intention to be bound by the Charter.2 The Complainant submits further that on 15 of September 1995, the Kingdom of Swaziland then ratified the Charter and by ratifying the Charter, the Kingdom declared its final formal intention and declaration to be bound by the provisions of the Charter. Formal agreements, particularly unilateral agreements [sic], normally require ratification in addition to the signature. This requires the representative of the State subsequently to endorse the earlier signature. This requires the representative of the state subsequently to endorse the earlier signature. This provides the state with an opportunity to reconsider its decision to be bound by the treaty, and, if necessary, to effect changes to its own law to enable it to fulfil its obligation under the treaty.3 29. The Complainant notes that the Kingdom of Swaziland had ample time between 1991 and 1995 to consider whether or not to formally agree to be bound by the [African] Charter or to change its laws to fulfil its obligations in 1995. 30. The Complainant notes that the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of the African Charter as the latter imposes an obligation on member states of the African Union to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to the rights, duties and obligations enshrined therein, noting the African Commission's decision in communication 147/95 and 149/964 where the African Commission found that: Article 1 gives the Charter the legally binding character always attributed to international treaties of this sort. Therefore a violation of any provision of the Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1. If a State Party to the Charter fails to recognise the provisions of the same, there is no doubt that it is in violation of this Article. Its violation, therefore, goes to the root of the Charter. 31. The Complainant states further that the African Commission found that the obligation under Article 1 commences at ratification and that ratification implies that the State party must also take pre-emptive steps to prevent human rights violations.5 According to the Complainant, it goes without saying that the African Commission must declare the Proclamation to be in violation of Article 1. 32. The Complainant also alleges violation of Article 7 of the African Charter noting that the Proclamation vests all powers of State to the King, including judicial powers and the authority to appoint and remove judges which necessitates the conclusion that Courts are not independent, especially in view of Decree No. 3 [of] 2001. This Decree clearly ousts the courts' jurisdiction to grant bail on matters listed in the schedule, which schedule may be amended from time to time outside Parliament. The Complainant made reference to the African Commission's decision in communication 60/91,6 where it was stated that: Jurisdiction has thus been transferred from the normal courts to a tribunal chiefly composed of persons belonging to the executive branch that passed the Robbery and Firearms Decree, whose members do not necessarily possess any legal expertise. Article 7.1.d of the African Charter requires courts or tribunal to be impartial. Regardless of the character of the individual members of such tribunals, its composition alone creates the appearance, if not lack, of impartiality. 33. According to the Complainant, Decree No. 3 of 2001 is in violation of Article 7, particularly Article 7.1.d and the African Commission is urged to find as such. 34. The Complainant also alleges violation of Article 10 and alleges that Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Proclamation in very clear terms abolish and prohibit the existence and the formation of political parties or organisations of a similar nature. In this regard, the Complainant quotes communication 225/987 and the African Commission's Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Association which provides that; • the competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international standards; • in regulating the use of this right, the competent authorities should not enact provisions which would limit the exercise of this freedom; • the regulation of the exercise of the right to freedom of association should be consistent with state's obligations under the African Charter. 35. The [African] Commission then concluded that the Nigerian Government's acts constituted a violation of Article 10 of the African Charter. Accordingly, this Resolution equally applies to the Kingdom of Swaziland, 3