112. In addition , the Commission recalls that the Victim filed a case in the High Court, 40 and subsequently appealed to the Constitutional Court,41 on the constitutionality of the Rules for the removal of office bearers, including Rule 129V on the appointment of a Judge to serve in the Independent Panel. The Constitutional Court received , considered and ultimately dismissed the Victim 's appeal on the constitutionality of Rule 129V. 113. In its jurisprudence , the Commission has held that "the right to be heard requires unfettered access to a court having jurisdiction to hear his case, that the issue be brought before the court and that the court is competent and enabled, by law, to hear the case ." 42 Furthermore, "the right to be heard extends beyond just those arrested and detained, to everyone to have access to relevant judicial bodies with jurisdiction to hear their case and grant them adequate compensation." 43 114. With this jurisprudence in mind, and taking into consideration the information before the Commission , it is observed that the Victim had access to the courts in the Respondent State which had jurisdiction to hear her case regarding the Rule on the appointment of a Judge to the Independent Panel and was able to bring her case before these courts. More importantly, the Rules governing the Independent Panel provide for the Victim to be afforded the opportunity to be heard via the Rule which provides that the Victim can 'respond in writing to all relevant allegations' against her, during the Independent Panel 's assessment of the case against holder of Public Office. 115. Based on this, the Commission finds that the Victim 's right to have her cause heard has not been violated by the appointment of a Judge as a member of the Independent Panel , and further the Victim 's right to have her cause heard was exercised before the courts in the Respondent State and is provided for in the Independent Panel 's Rules. 116. Consequently, the Commission finds that Article 7(1) of the African Charter has not been violated in the present Communication. Violation of Article 1 of the African Charter 117. Regarding Article 1 of the Charter, which provides that "the parties to the present Charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Chapter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them," the Commission notes from its jurisprudence that "Article 1 gives the Charter the legally binding character always attributed to international treaties of this sort. Therefore, a violation of any provision of the Charter automatically means a violation of Article 1."44 40 Public Protector v. Speaker of the Nationa l Assembly, Western Cape Division, Cape Town, Case 2107/21, 28 Jul y 2021 41 Speaker of the National Assembly v. Public Protector and Others: Democratic A lli ance lie Protector and Others (2022] ZACC, 04 Febrnary 2022 -~t.\ ,1 4 , 42 Communication 286/2004: Dino Noca v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (20 " 90 43 Id , paragraph 193 ---~' • 44 Communications 147/95 and 149/96: Sir Dawda K. Jawara v. The Gamb ia (2000) ~\\ ·\rp)]-, ,: 1 <' ~ ! 21 f VJ (...1. • AINE:~"C, ~"-' pl',\)V" ---:: 'i