121. In the instant case, it is the Applicants’ contention that Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011 prohibiting political demonstrations in certain areas of the city violates their rights to freedom of assembly, while the Respondent on its part contends that the Court lacks competence to examine the laws of Member States and by implication the instant Order prohibiting demonstrations. 122. The Court has previously addressed, under the admissibility head, the Respondent’s contention that the Court lacks competence to examine the laws of the Member States and will no longer dwell on the same issue. Besides, the Court has held that “When a sovereign State freely assumes international obligation and is being held accountable in respect of those obligations, that State cannot renounce those obligations under the pretext that the matter in question is one that falls essentially within its domestic jurisdiction.” MUSA SAIDYKHAN V. REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA RULING NO. ECW/CCJ/RUL/04/09 (2010) CCJELR PAGE 160. 123. The Court will now proceed to analyse whether the rights of the Applicants to assembly has been violated by the issuance of Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011. 124. The Court recalls that States are obligated not to enact laws that restrict the exercise of fundamental rights enshrined in regional and international human rights treaties that they are parties to. In this regard, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights stated that “competent authorities should not enact provisions which limit the exercise of this freedom. The competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the 38