40. Considering the fact that the regime at that material time controlled all the arms of government and had little regard for the judiciary, as was demonstrated by its disregard of a court order in the T. K Motors' case, and considering further that the Court of Appeal of The Gambia in the case of Pa Salla Jagne v The State, ruled that 'Now there are no human rights laws or goals and objective laws in the country', it would be reversing the clock of justice to request the Complainant to attempt local remedies. 41. It should also be noted that the government also claims that the communication lacks 'proofs in support'. The position of the Commission has always been that a communication must establish a prima facie evidence of violation. It must specify the provisions of the Charter alleged to have been violated. The state also claims that the Commission is allowed under the Charter to take action only on cases that reveal a series of serious or massive violations of human rights. 42. This is an erroneous proposition. Apart from Article 47 and Article 49 of the Charter, which empower the Commission to consider inter-state complaints, Article 55 of the Charter provides for the consideration of "communications other than those of States Parties". Further to this, Article 56 of the Charter stipulates the conditions for consideration of such communications (see also Chapter XVII[sic] of the Rules of Procedure entitled "Procedure for the Consideration of The Communications Received in Conformity with Article 55 of the Charter"). In any event, the practice of the Commission has been to consider communications even if they do not reveal a series of serious or massive violations. It is out of such useful exercise that the Commission has, over the years, been able to build up its case law and jurisprudence. 43. The argument that the action of the government is in conformity with regulations previously laid down by law is unfounded: the Commission decided in its decision on communication 101/93, with respect to freedom of association, that, "competent authorities should not enact provisions which limit the exercise of this freedom. The competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and international human rights standards". And more importantly, the Commission in its Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Association had also reiterated that: "The regulation of the exercise of the right to freedom of association should be consistent with States' obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights". It follows that any law, which is pleaded for curtailing the enjoyment of any of the rights provided for in the Charter, must meet this requirement. For these reasons, the Commission declared the communications admissible. Merits 44. The Complainant alleges that by suspending the Bill of Rights in the 1970 Gambian Constitution, the government violated Articles 1 and 2 of the African Charter. 45. Article 1 of the Charter provides that "The Member States ... parties to the present Charter shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Charter...", while Article 2 reads: "Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter...". 46. Article 1 gives the Charter the legally binding character always attributed to international treaties of this sort. Therefore a violation of any provision of the Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1. If a State party to the Charter fails to recognise the provisions of the same, there is no doubt that it is in violation of this Article. Its violation, therefore, goes to the root of the Charter. 47. The Republic of the Gambia ratified the Charter on 6th June 1983. In its first periodic report to the Commission in 1992, the Gambian government asserted that "Most of the rights set out in the Charter have been provided for in Chapter 3, Sections 13 to 30 of the 1970 Constitution...The Constitution predicts the Gambian accession to the covenants, but in fact gave legal effect to some of the provisions of the Charter". This therefore means that the Gambian government gave recognition to some of the provisions of the Charter (i.e. those contained in chapter 3 of its Constitution), and incorporated them into its domestic law. 48. By suspending Chapter 3, (the Bill of Rights), the government therefore restricted the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed therein, and, by implication, the rights enshrined in the Charter. 49. It should however be stated that the suspension of the Bill of Rights does not ipso facto mean the suspension of the domestic effect of the Charter. In Communication 129/94, the Commission held that "the obligation of ... a government remains unaffected by the purported revocation of the domestic effect of the 4