restrictions on rights must be necessary in a democratic society and they must be reasonably proportionate to the aim pursued. 101. The Court also acknowledges that once a complainant establishes that there is a prima facie violation of a right, it behooves on the Respondent State to establish that the right has been legally restricted in line with the provisions of Article 27(2) of the Charter. The Respondent State can discharge its burden by proving that the restriction is authorized by law - both domestic and international and also by establishing that the restriction serves one of the purposes listed under Article 27(2) of the Charter.32 102. Focusing on the position of the Respondent State in this Application, especially in relation to the purported restriction of the right to have one’s cause heard, the Court notes that there is nothing in the submissions of the Respondent State which establishes any of the conditions in Article 27(2) of the Charter to justify a limitation of the right to have one’s constitutional provision — article 41(7) which cause heard. Admittedly, of the Respondent prescribes the limitation at issue here. However, there is a State’s Constitution — it is trite law that a State cannot invoke its domestic laws to justify a breach of its international obligations. Resultantly, therefore, if a State relies on a provision of its domestic law to justify restriction of a right, such a State must be able to demonstrate that the provision(s) in its domestic law do not infringe the Charter. 103. In the context of the present Application, disputes, even those related to the election the Court notes that electoral of a president, implicate rights guaranteed in the Charter. Considering that decisions of the Electoral Commission in relation to the election of a president may have an effect on the rights to be enjoyed by citizens of the Respondent State, the Court finds it anomalous that citizens have not decisions been provided with an avenue for invoking judicial scrutiny of of the Electoral Commission. It is the lack of opportunity given to 82 Cf. Article 19 v. Eritrea, (2007) AHRLR 73 (ACHPR 2007) § 92. 28