rights of expression and freedom of association, but also that the applicant decision to go into exile for fear of continued persecution amounted to a separate and standalone breach of the right of return to his own country under Article 12 (2) of the Charter. The 3rd Applicant’s contention is that following her release she went into exile on fear of further persecution by the defendant and that her continued stay in exile constitutes a violation of her rights to personal liberty, work as a journalist, and freedom of expression. In Randolph V Togo Communication No. 910/2000 (2004) 11 IHRR 306 the UN Human rights committee held that where a person has been forced into exile by a violation of his/her human right, the continuation of the exile itself constitutes a continued breach of the same rights. The above findings are quite persuasive and in the light of earlier decisions of this court as referred to above we are of the view that the cause of action subsists so long as the 3rd plaintiff remains in forced exile. Therefore the Defendant’s contention that the 3rd Applicant’s action is statute barred cannot therefore be sustained as the acts complained of is a continuous in nature. The next issue for consideration is whether the facts of this application discloses a cause of action against the Defendant. 22