seek registration with the Respondent State before approaching it (the Supreme Court) for the relief on the merits of the constitutional challenge. 169. Can it be said that the Complainants were refused to be heard by the Supreme Court? In other words, by not hearing the Complainants’ petition on the merits, could it be argued that their right to have their cause heard has been violated? 170. To answer this question, the Commission will have to determine the meaning of having ‘one’s cause heard’ under Article 7.1.a of the Charter. 171. Article 7.1 of the African Charter provides that “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 violating his fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force” . 172. The right to have one’s cause heard requires that the matter has been brought before a tribunal with the competent jurisdiction to hear the case. A tribunal which is competent in law to hear a case has been given that power by law: it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person, and the trial is being conducted within any applicable time limit prescribed by law. 173. In the present communication, the Complainants argue that the Supreme Court failed to hear their ‘cause’ on the merits. The Supreme Court instead pronounced itself on a preliminary objection raised by the Respondent State that the Complainants were before the Court with dirty hands. In its ruling, the Supreme Court directed the Complainants to go and do that which they were challenging (to register in accordance with the Respondent State’s law they were challenging before the Court), and it is only then that their ‘cause’ could be heard on the merits. 174. In the opinion of the Commission, a ‘cause’ before a tribunal must be construed in broader terms to include everything related to the matter, including preliminary issues raised on the matter. The Court need not pronounce itself on the merits of the substantive matter. It simply needs to hear the parties. Thus, by pronouncing on the preliminary issue raised by the Respondent State on the question brought by the Complainants, the Supreme Court in effect heard the ‘cause’ of the Complainants. Besides, the Supreme Court did not close its doors on the Complainants, it simply asked the latter to go and register and come back to it for the matter to be heard on the merits. It can therefore not be said that the Respondent State has violated the Complainants’ rights under Article 7. Alleged violation of Article 9, 14 and 15 175. It is alleged that the State moved into action to seize the premises and close the offices of the Complainants after the Court’s decision. 176. Can it be said that the State was enforcing a Court decision or trying to prevent a breach of the law? The African Commission is of the view that even if the State was in the process of ensuring respect for the rule of law, it ought to have responded proportionally. In law, the principle of proportionality or proportional justice is used to describe the idea that the punishment of a certain crime should be in proportion to the severity of the crime itself. The principle of proportionality seeks to determine whether, by the action of the State, a fair balance has been struck between the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual and the interests of the society as a whole. In determining whether an action is proportionate, the Commission will have to answer the following questions: • • • • • Was there sufficient reasons supporting the action? Was there a less restrictive alternative? Was the decision-making process procedurally fair? Were there any safeguards against abuse? Does the action destroy the very essence of the Charter rights in issue? 177. In its decision, on communication 242/2001 Interights, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa, and Association Mauritanienne des Droits de l’Homme/Islamic Republic of Mauritania, the African Commission held in respect of the allegations made against the State that “the dissolution of UFD/Ere Nouvelle political party by the Respondent State was not proportionate to the