and thus Swaziland is in violation. With regards to allegations of violation of Article 11, the Complainant argues that the King's Proclamation does not only prohibit the right to associate but also the right to assemble peacefully and adds that the right to associate cannot be divorced from the right to assembly freely and peacefully. In this regard the Complainant cites the African Commission's decision in communications 147/95 and 149/968 where it stated that the [African] Commission in its Resolution on the Right to Freedom of Association had also reiterated that the regulation of the exercise of the right to freedom of association should be consisted [sic] with States obligations under the African Charter. This principle does not apply to freedom of association alone but also to all other rights and freedoms enshrined in the [African] Charter, including, the right to freedom of assembly. 36. The complainant also alleged violation of Article 13 of the African Charter and stated that Section 8 of King's Proclamation of 1981 provides that "The provisions of section 11 and 12 of the King's Proclamation of the 12th April, 1973 shall not be applicable to the Tinkundla which are hereby declared and recognised as centres for meetings of the nation" ]>Tinkhundla System of Government). In this regard, the Complainant refers to the [African] Commission's decision in communication 147/95 and 146/96 Sir Dawda Jawara/The Gambia where it stated that: "the imposition of the ban on former Ministers and Members of Parliament is in contravention of their rights to participate freely in the government of their country provided for under Article 13(1) of the Charter. Also the ban on political parties is a violation of the Complainants rights to freedom of association guaranteed under Article 10(1) of the Charter." 37. And communication 211/989 which provides that the [African] Charter must be interpreted holistically and all clauses must reinforce each other. The purpose or effect of any limitation must also be examined, as the limitation of the right cannot be used to subvert rights already enjoyed. Justification, therefore cannot be derived solely from popular will as such, cannot be used to limit the responsibilities of State parties in terms of the [African] Charter. 38. The Complainant alleges further a violation of Article 26 of the African Charter noting that a violation of Article 7 is relevant to Article 26 and in this regard makes reference to communication 52/91[sic], communication 54/91, 61/91, 96/93, 98/93, 164/97 to 196/97, 210/98], communication 61/91 [sic], and communication 129/9410 in which the African Commission found that while Article 7 focuses on the individual's right to be heard, Article 26 speaks of the institutions which are essential to give meaning and content to that right. This article clearly envisions the protection of the Courts which have traditionally been the bastion of protection of the individual's rights against the abuses of state power. 39. The complainant noted further that it is beyond doubt that the vesting of judicial powers in the person of the King undermines the authority and independence of the Courts, more so because the King with his legislative powers can easily water down the decision of the Courts as was the case in the judgment of Professor Dlamini v The King, Appeal Case No. 42/2000, where the King by Decree No. 2 of 2001 overturned the Court of Appeal judgment by reinstating the Non-Bailable Offences Order which had been declared unconstitutional. 40. The Complainant prays the African Commission to: • finds the King's Proclamation of 12th April 1973 to be in violation of the African Charter; and • recommend and mandate strongly the Kingdom of Swaziland to take constitutional measures forthwith to give effect to all the provisions of the African Charter, specifically Articles 1, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 26 thereof. Commission's decision on the merits 41. ln making this decision on the merits, the African Commission would like to point out that it is disappointed with the lack of cooperation from the Respondent State. The decision on the merits was taken without any response from the State. As a matter of fact, since the communication was submitted to the [African] Commission and in spite several correspondences to the [Respondent] State, there hasn't been any response from the latter on the matter. Under such circumstances, the [African] Commission is left with no other option than to take a decision based on the information at its disposal. 42. It must be stated however that, by relying on the information provided by the Complainant, the [African] Commission did not rush into making a decision. The [African] Commission analysed each allegation made and established the veracity thereof. 4