findings of national courts , versus its actual mandate as per the African Charter. The distinction is that the Commission 's review is limited to a few questions: first, whether or not there is evidence to establish the occurrence of a violation of rights guaranteed under the Charter; and second , whether after approaching national courts , the Victim was not able to get remedies for the violations. In no case would the Commission's consideration of the Communication involve reviewing whether national courts erred or not. If the Commission has to undertake such analysis, it would not be on the basis of the legal standards of the national legal system, but on the basis of the standards elaborated in the African Charter. Even then, the purpose of the analysis would only be to establish whether or not a violation of any of the rights took place, and whether or not local remedies were availed . 103. Lastly, as to the Complainant's contention that the presence of the Judge in the Independent Panel will weaken the public's confidence in the judiciary, the Commission observes that the Complainant has not submitted any evidence or arguments which demonstrate how the public's confidence in the Judiciary will be weakened by the appointment of a Judge to the Independent Panel; this is merely speculation. 104. In this regard , the Commission 's jurisprudence is instructive. In Tsatsu Tsikata v. Republic of Ghana , the Commission held that "proving a case entails producing evidence that moves the allegation from one point to the next towards absolute certainty. 37 Accordingly , in the absence of any evidence or arguments to buttress the allegation , the Commission is unable to hold that the public's confidence in the Judiciary will be weakened if a Judge is appointed as a member of the Independent Panel. 105. Based on this analysis, the Commission is of the considered view that the appointment of a Judge to serve in the Independent Panel does not violate the principle of separation of powers which ensures the independence of the Judiciary and accordingly does not find a violation of Article 26 of the African Charter. Violation of Article 7(1) of the African Charter 106. Article 7(1) of the African Charter provides the following : "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions , laws, regulations and customs in force ; (b) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal; (c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; (d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal. " 107. The Complainant contends that the violation of the Victim 's right 19_: :.....~ -;-Her ctr, se heard , is premised on the argument that the appointment of a , &tg'~ t{ .serve i.n'~ ( 37 (-' 1/11-~ ,. I ('I,\ / 0 ~ ~ Communication 322/2006: Tsatsu Tsikata v. Re publi c of Ghana (20 14) ACHPR, para '.r:iplp124 ~ 19 ' • \ \ ·, . '-'U.u4 ,·· t'5 ~ § f R' ·l ·11'>-. 'i,(J '. , . • "<'ICA1N1:.0€ c,, I· • ••,., ' \,,<c; E:r DES pE\J~ ,;,,"