expelled, and their property and documentation were confiscated, specifically because they were foreigners. 78. In interpreting the African Charter, the African Commission relies on its own jurisprudence, and as provided by articles 60and 61 of the African Charter, on appropriate and relevant international and regional human rights instruments, principles and standards. In the present case, the African Commission has dealt with communications alleging similar violations of freedom from discrimination. Article 2 of the African Charter basically forms the anti-discrimination principle that is essential to the spirit of the African Charter and is therefore necessary in eradicating discrimination in 26 all its guises. 79. The facts as presented by the Complainant are not challenged by the Respondent State as the latter has not sent any submission whatsoever. It appears that the victims were targets of a government action which aimed at rounding up and deporting foreigners or non-nationals. Although governments have the right to regulate entry, exit and stay of foreign nationals in their territories, and as the Complainant rightly avers that although the African Charter does not bar deportations per se, the African Commission reaffirms its position that “a state’s right to expel individuals is not absolute and it is subject to certain restraints,” one of those restraints being a bar against discrimination based on national origin. As mentioned above, there is no submission from the Respondent State countering this in that the victims belonged to a larger group which did not consist of only Gambian nationals, but nationals of several foreign countries. However, even if such an argument were to be advanced here, the Commission has previously ruled that “the simultaneous expulsion of nationals of many countries does not negate the charge of discrimination.” 80. From the foregoing, it is clear that the various violations allegedly committed by the actions of the Respondent State have, as their target, foreigners or non-nationals. This, in the opinion of the African Commission, is a clear violation of the provisions of the African Charter under Article 2, which encapsulates crucial human rights holding at bay such practices as that of the Respondent State. Rights under the African Charter are to be enjoyed by all, without discrimination, by citizens and nonnational residents alike. Although some rights, like the right to vote and to stand for election are reserved for citizens of the particular State, human rights are in principle to be enjoyed by all 27 persons. Alleged violation of Article 1 81. Article 1 of the African Charter reads: “the Member States of the Organisation of African Unity, parties to the present Charter shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them” . 82. The Complainant alleges that “a violation of any provision of the Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1, so that ‘If a State party to the Charter fails to recognise the provisions of the 28 same, there is no doubt that it is in violation of this Article.” The African Commission is of the view that State parties to the African Charter (including the Respondent State) have the obligation of recognising the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter, as well as the responsibility of providing an environment in which those rights and freedoms can be enjoyed through the adoption of legislative or other measures that give effect to them. 83. The African Commission had held that Article 1 of the African Charter proclaims a fundamental principle that not only do the States Parties recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter, they also commit themselves to respect them and to take measures to give effect to 29 them. In other words, if a State Party fails to ensure respect of the rights contained in the African Charter, this constitutes a violation of the African Charter even if the State or its agents were not the perpetrators of the violation. The actions of the Respondent State constitute a violation of certain provisions of the Charter and hence in violation of the provisions of Article 1 of the African Charter, since instead of adopting measures to promote and protect human rights, the Respondent State pursued a course of action which failed to take into account the various safeguards envisioned by the African Charter. 84. The African Commission wishes to emphasis[e] that there is nothing in the African Charter that requires Member States of the African Union to guarantee for non-nationals an absolute right to enter