not intended to cater for situations where persons in need of medical assistance or help are institutionalised. 69. The Complainants also allege that institutionalisation of detainees under the LDA who are not afforded any opportunity of being heard or represented prior to or after their detention violates Articles 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(c) of the African Charter. 70. Articles 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(c) of the African Charter provides: “1. 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 recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; (c) The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice.” 71. It is evident that the LDA does not contain any provisions for the review or appeal against an order of detention or any remedy for detention made in error or wrong diagnosis or treatment. Neither do the patients have the legal right to challenge the two separate medical certificates, which constitute the legal basis of their detention. These omissions in the LDA clearly violate Articles 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(c) of the African Charter. 72. The guarantees in Article 7(1) extend beyond hearings in the normal context of judicial determinations or proceedings. Thus Article 7(1) necessitates that in circumstances where persons are to be detained, such persons should at the very least be presented with the opportunity to challenge the matter of their detention before the competent jurisdictions that should have ruled on 16 their detention. The entitlement of persons with mental illness or persons being treated as such to be heard and to be represented by Counsel in determinations affecting their lives, livelihood, liberty, property or status, is particularly recognised in Principles 16, 17 and 18 of the UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Care. 73. The Complainants submit that the failure of the Respondent State to provide for and enable the detainees under the LDA to exercise their civic rights and obligations, including the right to vote, violates Article 13(1) of the African Charter which provides: “Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law.” 74. In its earlier submissions, the Respondent State admits that persons detained at Campama are not allowed to vote because they believe that allowing mental health patients to vote would open the country’s democratic elections to much controversy as to the mental ability of these patients to make an informed choice as to which candidate to vote for. Subsequently, the Respondent State in its more recent submissions suggests that there are limited rights for some mentally disabled persons to vote; however this has not been clearly explained. 75. The right provided for under Article 13(1) of the African Charter is extended to ‘every citizen’ and its denial can only be justified by reason of legal incapacity or that the individual is not a citizen of a particular State. Legal incapacity may not necessarily mean mental incapacity. For example a State may fix an age limit for the legibility of its own citizens to participate in its government. Legal incapacity, as a justification for denying the right under Article 13(1) can only come into play by invoking provisions of the law that conform to internationally acceptable norms and standards. 76. The provisions of Article 13(1) of the African Charter are similar in substance to those provided for under Article 25 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]. In interpreting Article 13(1) of the African Charter, the African Commission would like to endorse the clarification provided by the [UN] Human Rights Committee in relation to Article 25 . The [UN] Human Rights Committee has expressed that any conditions applicable to the exercise of Article 25 rights should be based on 17 objective and reasonable criteria established by law. Besides the view held by the Respondent State questioning the mental ability of mentally disabled patients to make informed choices in relation to their civic duties and obligations, it is very clear that there are no objective bases within the legal system of the Respondent State to exclude mentally disabled persons from political participation. 77. The Complainants submit that the scheme and operation of the LDA both violate the right to health provided for in Article 16 of the African Charter when read with Article 18(4) of the African Charter. 78. Article 16 of the African Charter provides: