Merits 86. In June 1996, the Commission sent a good-offices mission to Mauritania. The delegation met with members of the government and non-governmental organisations to discuss the overall human rights situation in the country. 87. The mission was undertaken at the initiative of the Commission in its capacity as promoter of human and peoples' rights. It was not an enquiry mission; and while it permitted the Commission to get a better grasp of the prevailing situation in Mauritania, the mission did not gather any additional specific information on the alleged violations, except on the issue of slavery. The present decision is therefore based on the written and oral declarations made before the Commission over the past six years. 88. In the case under consideration, no indication from the government, with the exception of the issue of slavery, seeks to refute the facts adduced in the communications. The representative of the government, who appeared before the Commission at the 19th Session and subsequent sessions, admitted that the communications of which the Commission was seized "deal with a naturally deplorable, but peculiar and exceptional situation [...] that has in any case since been surmounted... ". And according to the government, "most of the issues raised have already been resolved, others are in the process of being settled". It claims, as regards the ex-prisoner civil servants that "the démarches undertaken by those who have constituted themselves into a collective are the result of manipulations of the opposition..." with the aim of countering government action. 89. Though the above-mentioned declaration by the government representative could have constituted a basis for an amicable solution, such a solution could only take place with the agreement of the parties. However at least one of the complainants has clearly indicated that a resolution can only be reached on the basis of some specific conditions, of which none has so far been met to its satisfaction. While it appreciates the government's good will, and hopes to collaborate with it in future to ensure the effectiveness of the settlement of the damages suffered by all the victims of the events described above, the Commission has an obligation to adjudge on the clearly stated facts contained in the various communications. More so as it does not consider acceptable the position of the government that the atrocities and other assassinations committed within the military institution were "an internal affair of the army; that the army had conducted its own inquiry, following which appropriate sanctions were meted out to those military men who were found guilty". 90. Article 7 of the Charter stipulates that: "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: 1. the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights...; 2. the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; 3. the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; 4. the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal." 91. Mauritania ratified the African Charter on 14th June 1986, and it came into force on 21st October 1986. The September trials, thus, took place prior to the entry into force of the Charter. These trials led to the imprisonment of various persons. The Commission can only consider a violation that took place prior to the entry into force of the Charter if such a violation continues or has effects which themselves constitute violations after the entry into force of the Charter (cf. decision taken on communication 59/91, p. 28) [sic]. The Commission should therefore have the competence to consider these trials with a view to ascertaining whether the incarcerations that resulted from them constitute a violation of Article 6 of the Charter. 92. The government did not give any substantial response to the allegations that the said trials were arbitrary. Consequently, in conformity with its well-established jurisprudence, the Commission (cf. decisions taken on communications 59/91, 60/91, 64/91, 87/93 and 101/93) shall adjudge based on the elements provided by the complainants. 93. The State Security Section of the Special Tribunal does not provide for any appeal procedure. Two specific cases mentioned in the communications took place in September and October 1987 (see para. 10 and 11) and no appeals were authorised. One of the trials ended in the execution of 3 army lieutenants. 94. Furthermore, even when an appeal was allowed, as in the first case in the "Manifesto" (para. 3 and 4), on 13th October 1986, the Court of Appeal confirmed the verdicts, even though the accused had contested the procedure of the initial trial, and the Public Prosecutor's office did not contest the complaints of the accused. From all indications, the Court of Appeal simply confirmed the sentences without considering all 10