of access to remedies. Furthermore, the Complainants allege under international law and Congolese legislation, these juveniles should not have been tried by a Military Court which is not competent under the current circumstances to try the case. In conclusion, the Complainants also believe that as the victims did not receive judicial assistance in spite of their specific situation, it violates their right to a fair trial. The submissions of the Respondent State on the merits 55. The Respondent State did not make any submissions on allegations of violation of Articles 1 and 3 of the Charter. In respect of Article 4 , the State contends that the victims were child soldiers tried for more serious offences, in particularly criminal conspiracy, armed robbery and murder, all of which attract the death penalty under the national legislation. In addition, the DRC reports that the victims fell within the military jurisdiction. The key submission invoked by the Respondent State is that the sentence handed down to them had never been enforced and that the sentences were commuted thanks to a presidential Decree. 56. On the violation of Article 7 of the Charter, the Respondent State asserts that the facts fell within the competence of a Military Court established by law. As for the non compliance with the principle of second hearing, the DRC believes that the sentences were not eventually enforced as the convicts enjoyed a pardon. On the issue of judicial assistance, the State contends that the victims received judicial assistance and called on the Complainants to prove the contrary. The Commissions analysis on the Merits 57. On the issue of submissions alleging the violation of the national laws and international instruments referred to by the Complainants, the Commission would like to make two preliminary clarifications. Regarding the national laws, the Commission notes that it is not competent to decide if the actions of the Respondent State are consistent with its national laws. The Commission is only competent to verify if the national laws and the Respondent States actions are consistent with the African Charter. Regarding international human rights instruments other than the African Charter, the Commission notes that States are sovereign entities under international law. That being the case, the convention of international obligations establishes that an obligation falls on a State in as far as the latter has acceded to it by becoming a party to the legal instrument or authorizing a specified entity to take up the burden of such obligation. 58. In the area of human rights, the sovereignty and subscription to such obligations often result in the adoption of conventions proclaiming rights and freedoms and determining their protection mechanism. These mechanisms are formalized by the establishment of international bodies with a mandate to establish the violation of such rights and freedoms by State Parties and to indicate, where necessary, the measures to be taken to remedy such a violation. For instance, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights instituted a United Nations Human Rights Committee. Similarly, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child established a Committee on the Rights and Welfare of the Child whereas the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights created this Commission. 59. Thus, the Commission was specifically established to ensure the promotion and protection of human and peoples rights incorporated in the Charter. The fact still remains that pursuant to the provisions of Article 60 of the Charter, the Commission can draw inspiration from the principles of international human rights law, in particular the ones prescribed in other international conventions. However, the fact that the Commission is permitted to use these conventions does not provide it the mandate to ensure the monitoring of its implementation. The relevant provisions of the Charter must rather be interpreted as a possibility for the Commission to apply these principles to determine the content and the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Charter. 60. Consequently, the Commission will not take a decision on the alleged violations of the 9