76.Again, except where a Member State steps outside its international obligations, and to the extent that the said stepping out occasioned a violation of the said international obligations, this court will not interfere in its internal political processes. One thing, however, is clear on the reading of the constitutive texts on the Court and the African Charter, that the member states placed great faith in this Court to direct, through its human rights mandate, the path that the human rights landscape of the Community must tread. It is therefore incumbent on the Court, to constantly maintain the balance between the freedom of government to act and the need to ensure that these actions protect the guaranteed rights of the community citizens. 77.So where, in the course of regulating its internal process, the House, being a principal organ of the Respondent violates the rights of a Community citizen, this Court’s non-interventionist stance ceases and it will move to protect the rights involved. The Court will intervene in favour of the victim to protect a breach of a right guaranteed under the African Charter. So, contrary to the submission of the Respondent that the impeachment of the Applicant was a political trial which proscribes the Court’s intervention, when conducting its internal proceedings, this Court cannot ignore any breaches of fundamental human rights occasioned in the process in order to rule in favour of political decisions. To do so would be inconsistent with both the mandate of the Court, and the provisions of the African Charter and even the Respondent’s own Constitution. 78.When considering the actions of the agents and organs of governments of Member States, be it political or otherwise, it is imperative to point out that member states have voluntarily subscribed to the obligations enshrined in the 31