75 Communication 251/02 - Lawyers for Human Rights v Swaziland (2005) ACHPR paras 54 - 56. The Complainant also cites Communication 147/95, 149/96 -Jawara v The Gambia (2000)ACHPR and the Human Rights Committee's decision in Communication 468/1991-Bahamonde v Equatorial Guinea (1993) HRC 75 Communication 245/02 - Zimbabwean Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe(2006) ACHPR para 215 ; In relation to the discontinuance of on-going cases, the Complainant refers to the Human Rights Committee's decision in Communication 547/1993 - Mahuika v New Zealand (2000) HRC 76 N° 001/2011 - Falana v African Union (2012) ACtHPR 77 The Complainant relies on the authority of Waite and Kennedy v Germany (1999) ECtHR Application No26083/94 and Case C-84/95Bosphorus Hava Yollary Turizmve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland (1996) ECR (Bosphorus case) in support of this argument. 78 See para 96 above 79 See Rule 107 of the African Commission's Rules of Procedure. 80 In this regard, the Commission aligns with the position of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Court) in its judgment in Falana v Nigeria (n 101 above) that the recognition of the international legal personality of an international organisation is not the same as saying that the legal personality, rights and duties of the organisation are the same as those of a state. 81 Bhosphorus case, n 102 above; 82 Art 7(1) (b)- (d)& (2) mostly deal with the right to fair hearing in criminal cases and does not apply to the present Communication. 83 Communication 313/05 - Kenneth Good v Botswana (2010) ACHPR para 139 84 Ibid 85 Communication 129/94 - Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria for instance is indicative of this jurisprudence. 86 All the decisions cited by the Complainant relate to national courts. Also see Communications 140/94-141/94-145/95 - Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (1999) ACHPR and Communication 225/98 - Huri - Laws / Nigeria (2000) ACHPR 87 (Application no.43233/02) Maksimov v Russia (2010) ECtHR. Also see the judgment of the ECtHR in the case of Application no. 7051/06 Golha v The Czech Republic (2011) ECtHRpara 71 × The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms. In the present case the applicant used the opportunity to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the proceedings. Consequently the Ministry of Justice and later Prague 2 District Court acknowledged the violation of his right to a hearing without unjustified delay and awarded him just satisfaction. The Court underlines that Prague 2 District Court indeed took into account the length of the compensatory proceedings and awarded the applicant CZK 30,000 (EUR 1,216) on this account, in order to provide him with extra damages to compensate for the delays arising during the compensatory proceedings and not to penalise him further (see Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro, cited above). 21