43. A preliminary matter that has to be addressed by the African Commission is the competence of the commission to entertain allegations of human rights violations that took place before the adoption of the [African] Charter or even its coming into force. In making this determination the [African] Commission has to differentiate between allegations that are no longer being perpetrated and violations that are ongoing. 44. ln case of the former, that is, violations that occurred before the coming into force of the [African] Charter but which are no longer or which stopped before the coming into force of the [African] Charter, the [African] Commission has no competence to entertain them. The events which occurred before the date of ratification of the [African] Charter are therefore outside the [African] Commission's competence rationae temporis. The [African] Commission is only competent ratione temporis to consider events which happened after that date or, if they happened before then, constitute a violation continuing after that date. 45. ln the present communication, the violations are said to have started in 1973 following the Proclamation by the King, that is, prior to the coming into force of the African Charter and continued after the coming into force of the [African] Charter through when the Respondent State ratified the [African] Charter and is still ongoing to date. The [African] Commission therefore has the competence to deal with the communication. 46. The [African] Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the case because the petition alleges violations of rights protected by the African Charter, which have taken place within the territory of a State Party to that Charter. It has competence ratione materiae as the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the [African] Charter, and lastly it has competence ratione temporis as the facts alleged in the petition took place when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the [African] Charter was in force for the Kingdom of Swaziland. Given that Swaziland signed the [African] Charter in 1991 and later ratified [it] on 15 September 1995, it is clear that the alleged events continue to be perpetrated when the [Respondent] State became [sic] under the obligation to respect and safeguard all rights enshrined in the [African] Charter, giving the [African] Commission rationae temporis competence. 47. The two stages of signature and ratification of an international treaty provides states with the opportunity to take steps to ensure that they make the necessary domestic arrangements to ensure that by the time they ratify a treaty the latter is in conformity with their domestic law. When ratifying the [African] Charter, the Respondent State was aware of the violation complaint [sic] of and had the obligation to take all the necessary steps to comply with its obligations under Article 1 of the [African] Charter - to adopt legislative and other measures to give effect to the rights and freedoms in the [African] Charter. 48. From the above, it is the [African] Commission's opinion that it is competent to deal with the matter before it. 49. Having determined that it is competent to deal with the matter, the [African] Commission will now proceed to examine each of the rights alleged to have been violated by the Respondent State. 50. The complainant argues that by ratifying the African Charter and not adopting legislative and other measures to bring the 1973 Proclamation in conformity with the [African] Charter, the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of the African Charter. The use of the terms 'other measures' in Article 1 provides State Parties with a wide choice of measures to use to deal with human rights problems. In the present situation when a Decree has been passed by the Head of State abrogating the Constitution, it was incumbent on the same Head of State and other relevant institutions in the country to demonstrate good faith and either reinstate the Constitution or amend the Decree to bring it in conformity with the [African] Charter provisions during or after ratification. 51. ln the opinion of the [African] Commission, by ratifying the [African] Charter without at the same time taking appropriate measures to bring domestic laws in conformity with it, the Respondent State's action defeated the very object and spirit of the [African] Charter and thus violating Article 1 thereof. 52. The complainant also alleges violation of Article 7 of the [African] Charter stating that the Proclamation vests all powers of State to the King, including judicial powers and the authority to appoint and remove judges and Decree No. 3/2001 which ousts the courts' jurisdiction to grant bail on matters listed in the schedule. According to the complainant this illustrates that courts are not independent. 53. Article 7 of the African Charter provides for fair trial guarantees - safeguards to ensure that any person accused of an offence is given a fair hearing. In its Resolution on Fair Trial adopted at its 11th Ordinary Session, in Tunis, Tunisia, from 2nd to 9th March 1992, the African Commission held that the right to fair trial includes, among other things, the right to be heard, the right of an arrested person to be informed at the time of arrest in a language he/she understands, of the reason for the arrest and to be informed promptly of any charges against them, the right of arrested or detained persons to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and be tried within a reasonable time or be released, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court. 53. In the 5