15 16 and such full rehabilitation as may be possible” . In the case of Hugo Rodriguez v. Uruguay , the Committee reaffirmed its position that amnesties for gross violations of human rights are incompatible with the obligations of the State party under the Covenant and expressed concern that in adopting the amnesty law in question, state party contributed to an atmosphere of impunity which may undermine the democratic order and give rise to further human rights violations. 94. The African Commission has also held amnesty laws to be incompatible with a State’s human 17 rights obligations. Guideline No. 16 of the Robben Island Guidelines adopted by the African nd Commission during its 32 Session in October 2002 further states that “in order to combat impunity States should: a) ensure that those responsible for acts of torture or ill-treatment are subject to legal process; and b) ensure that there is no immunity from prosecution for nationals suspected of torture, and that the scope of immunities for foreign nationals who are entitled to such immunities be as 18 restrictive as is possible under international law.” 19 95. In Malawi African Association and Others v. Mauritania , “the Commission held that the amnesty law adopted by the Mauritanian legislature had effect of annulling the penal nature of the precise and violations of which the plaintiffs are complaining; and that the said law also had the effect of leading to the foreclosure of any judicial actions that may be brought before local jurisdictions by the victims of the alleged violations”. The Commission went further to note that its role consists precisely in “pronouncing on allegations of violations of the human rights protected by the Charter of which it is seized in conformity with the relevant provisions of that instrument. It is of the view that an amnesty law adopted with the aim of nullifying suits or other actions seeking redress that may be filed by the victims or their beneficiaries. While having the force of law cannot shield that country from fulfilling its international obligations under the Charter”. 20 96. In Article 3Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum/Zimbabwe this Commission reiterated its position on amnesty laws by holding that “by passing the Clemency Order No, 1 of 2000, prohibiting prosecution and setting free perpetrators of ‘politically motivated crimes’, the State did not only encourage impunity but effectively foreclosed any available avenue for the alleged abuses to be invested, and prevented victims of crimes and alleged human rights violations from seeking effective remedy and compensation. This act of the State constituted a violation of the victims’ right to judicial protection and to have their cause heard under Article 7.1 of the African Charter”. 97. If there appears to be any possibility of an alleged victim succeeding at a hearing, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to have their matter heard. Adopting laws that would grant immunity from prosecution of human rights violators and prevent victims from seeking compensation render the victims helpless and deprives them of justice. 98. In the light of the above, the African Commission holds that by granting total and complete immunity from prosecution which foreclosed access to any remedy that might be available to the victims to vindicate their rights, and without putting in place alternative adequate legislative or institutional mechanisms to ensure that perpetrators of the alleged atrocities were punished, and victims of the violations duly compensated or given other avenues to seek effective remedy, the Respondent State did not only prevent the victims from seeking redress, but also encouraged impunity, and thus reneged on its obligation in violation of Articles 1 and 7 (1) of the African Charter. The granting of amnesty to absolve perpetrators of human rights violations from accountability violates 21 the right of victims to an effective remedy. Holding For these reasons, the African Commission: a) Finds that the Respondent State is in violation of Articles 1, 2, 3(2), 7 and 13 of the African Charter and requests it to take the appropriate measures to remedy the situation; b) Requests both parties to inform the Commission on the progress made in reviewing the discriminatory provisions in the Constitution; c) Offer Good Offices in case it is needed to assist. th Adopted at the 5 Extraordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 21-29 July 2008, Banjul, The Gambia.