Complainant has made compelling and uncontested arguments that the Respondent States are collectively responsible for the acts and omissions that constitute the alleged violations of Articles 7 and 26 of the Charter. The question that needs to be resolved is whether the alleged acts and omissions constitute a violation of any obligation under the African Charter. Alleged violation of Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter 135. The Complainant's contention that the Respondent States have violated the right of access to court is hinged on the understanding that such a right of access to the SADC Tribunal can be founded on a combined reading of Articles 7 and 26 of the Charter. The Commission will analyse the two articles to determine whether such a right and a correlative obligation on the Respondent States can be sustained. 136. Article 7(1)(a) which is the portion relevant to the Communication provides that "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and custom in force".82 The Complainant's contention is that these provisions guarantee the Victims a right of access to court and that this includes the right of access to the SADC Tribunal. In the Complainant's view, this translates into a correlative international obligation on the part of the Respondent States to ensure unrestricted access to the SADC Tribunal inter alia, in matters alleging violation of human rights. The Complainant refers to the jurisprudence of the Commission in support of this argument. 137. As the Commission has previously noted, "the right to be heard requires that the Complainant has unfettered access to a tribunal of competent jurisdiction to hear his case".83 The Commission also understands that the right to be heard "requires the matter to be brought before a tribunal with competent jurisdiction to hear the cases".84 In the opinion of the Commission, the claim of a right of access to court is consistent with the right to fair hearing under Article 7 of the Charter. 138. The language of Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter itself is a clear indication that the provision envisages the right of individuals to access court at the national level. Accordingly, the Commission understands Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter to embrace both a right of access to court and a right to an effective remedy at the domestic level in the event of a violation of the rights guaranteed in the Charter. A denial of the right of access to a national judicial forum will amount to a definite and inexcusable violation of Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter. In this regard, the Commission notes its established jurisprudence as cited by the Complainant that in appropriate cases the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts constitutes a restriction of access to court and therefore amounts to a violation of Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter.85 However, as is clearly laid out in the Charter itself, the access envisaged in Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter is access to national courts within the domestic legal system of the State Parties to the Charter. 139. In the view of the Commission, although a teleological interpretation of Article 1 of the Charter permits State Parties to the African Charter to adopt appropriate measures, including cooperation at intergovernmental levels, to give effect to the rights guaranteed in the Charter, the primary obligation undertaken by State Parties in Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter is to ensure access to national courts. Accordingly, the Commission has consistently interpreted Article 7 of the Charter as imposing an obligation on State Parties to ensure the right to a fair trial at the national level.86 140. The view of the Commission coincides with the position of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) whose jurisprudence can be of inspirational value to the Commission to by virtue of Articles 60 and 61 of the African Charter. Dealing with a question of access to court in relation to Article 13 × Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the ECtHR stated in the case of Maksimov v Russia that "...the Convention guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic level".87 . This means that the ECtHR also understands the right of access to court to mean a right of access to domestic courts of the state parties to an international human rights Treaty. 141. The claim presented by the Complainant is that a procedural right granted on the platform of SADC has been withdrawn by the Respondent States. The Commission notes that the Complainant has not alleged that access to the national courts of the Respondent States in cases of alleged violation of Charter rights have been withdrawn. In fact, instead, the Complainant has supplied a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which upholds the rights of the Victims. 17