period of the jurisdiction of the Commission began in relation to the facts of the present Communication and thus, the requirements of Article 56(6) have been fulfilled. 111. Concerning Article 56(7) of the Charter, the Commission notes that the provision codifies the non bis in idem rule67 which ensures that no State may be sued or condemned more than once for the same alleged human rights violations, and seeks to uphold and recognize the res judicata status68 of decisions issued by international and regional tribunals and/or bodies. 112. The import of this requirement is that the matter in contention, which must relate to the same facts and parties, must have been "settled" - it must no longer be under consideration under an international dispute-settlement procedure.69 Also, the prior settlement of the matter must have been by a body "capable of granting declaratory or compensatory relief to victims, not mere political resolutions and declarations"70 ; that is, "an international adjudication mechanism, with a human rights mandate".71 113. There is no evidence before the Commission to show that this Communication has been "settled" by any "international adjudication mechanism", in accordance with the referenced international instruments and as such, the Commission holds that the requirements of Article 56(7) have been met. 114. In view of the analysis above, the African Commission declares the Communication admissible. Consideration of the Merits Summary of the Complainant's Submission 115. The Complainant submits that that the suspension and permanent ouster of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Tribunal (SADC Tribunal) is unlawful because it violates binding provisions of the African Charter, the SADC Treaty and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in that the ouster infringes on the right of access to court, interferes with the independence, competence and institutional integrity of the SADC Tribunal, terminated existing proceedings and vested remedies, violated the rule of law and trespassed on the doctrine of separation of powers. The Complainant submits further that the suspension and permanent ouster of the SADC Tribunal is procedurally irregular for interfering with the existence and functioning of the SADC Tribunal, "an essential Treaty organ" and constitutes an "irrational and arbitrary exercise of executive powers" because "it is in bad faith and motivated by extraneous considerations". 116. It is the Complainant's contention that the suspension and subsequent permanent ouster of the SADC Tribunal by the Respondent States is a violation of the Victim's right of access to court as guaranteed in Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter read together with the Commission's Resolution on the Right to Recourse and Fair Trial.72 The Complainant relies on the Commission's jurisprudence in Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria in support of this point.73 117. The Complainant argues further that the acts and omissions of the Respondent States amount to a violation of the independence, competence and institutional integrity of the SADC Tribunal and by extension, the doctrine of separation of powers as applicable under the SADC framework. On this point, the Complainant cites the Commission's decision in Lawyers for Human Rights v Swaziland.75 118. The Complainant also submits that the totality of the acts and omissions of the Respondent State amount to a retrospective termination of extant proceedings and deprivation of accrued remedies in favour of the Victims since the SADC Tribunal is now unable to hear new or existing cases, including those instituted prior to the events complained of. The Complainant contends that by so doing, the Respondent States have violated 3 and 7(1) of the African Charter, Articles 2(3) × Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. and Article 14 × 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national 13