other institutions or persons in the discharge of its functions but acted with full independence. The Commission does not therefore find a violation of Article 26 of the Charter. 142. Relating to the issue of the violation of Article 1 of the Charter, the Commission finds that the Respondent State did not violated any of the rights, alleged by the Complainants, and cannot therefore be held to have violated Article 1 of the Charter. Decision of the African Commission In conclusion, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights finds that the Respondent State has not violated Articles 1,2,3,7(1)(a), 7(1)(d), 13(1) and 26 of the African Charter as alleged by the Complainants. rd Done at the 43 Ordinary Session in Ezulwini, Kingdom of Swaziland, from 7- 22 May, 2008. Footnotes th 1. Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda/Nigeria, 13 Annual Activity Report of the OAU [sic], 1999–2000, para. 36. 10. www.legal-explanations.com 11. #11See para. 95 and 96 for details about these petitions in which the judiciary disposed them within the prescribed time limit. 2. Velasquez Rodriguez case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. 3. Inter-American Court on Human Rights Advisory Opinion 13/93 para. 26-27 . 4. Case No. 10.087 (September 30, 1997). 5. E/CN.4/2003/65/Add.1.25 February 2003. 6. Report 01/90 on cases 9768, 9780 and 9828 Mexico paragraphs 411 and 42, Annual Report of the InterAmerican Commission 1989-1990. 7. See paragraph 8 which refers to annex in the Communication, and also paragraphs 84 and 86 herein above on petitions filed by both parties. 8. communication 211/98. It is observed that the use of the word ‘abjures’ could have been intended to mean ‘abhors’, hence the use of the (sic) to show that it was an incorrect word. 9. 347 U.S 483 (1954).