105. The African Commission, while recognising the important role played by the United Nations Security Council, the Human Rights Council, (and its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights,) and other UN organs and agencies on the Darfur crisis, is of the firm view that these organs are not the mechanisms envisaged under Article 56(7). The mechanisms envisaged under Article 56(7) of the Charter must be capable of granting declaratory or compensatory relief to victims, not mere political resolutions and declarations. 106. In the opinion of this Commission, the content of the current complaints were not submitted to any such bodies, by the Complainants, or any other individual or institution. 107. For these reasons, the African Commission declares both communications admissible. Submissions on the merits 108. It should be noted that in spite of several reminders, neither the Complainants nor the Respondent State submitted in respect of the SHRO Case. 109. The other Complainant, COHRE, and the Respondent State made submissions on the merits with respect to the COHRE Case. The Commission will consider their submissions. 1995 Rules of Procedure of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 120 of the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission states that “[i]f the communication is admissible, the Commission shall consider it in the light of all the information that the individual and the State Party concerned has submitted in writing; it shall make known its observation on this issue…”. Complainant’s submissions on the merits 110. The Complainant submits that since February 2003, following the emergence of an armed conflict in the Darfur region, the Respondent State has engaged in and continues to forcibly evict thousands of Black indigenous tribes, inhabitants of the Darfur from their homes, communities and villages. The alleged forced evictions and accompanying human rights abuses recorded in this communication constitute a violation of the rights guaranteed under the African Charter to which the Respondent State is a party. 111. It is submitted that the Respondent State failed to respect and protect the human rights of the Darfur people. Regarding the obligation to respect, it is submitted that government forces attacked villages, injuring and killing civilians, raping women and girls, and destroying homes. The State also failed to prevent the Janjaweed militiamen from killing, assaulting and raping villagers, hence failing in its obligation to protect the civilian population of Darfur. The communication also alleges that at times the Janjaweed and government forces conducted joint attacks on villages. 112. The Complainant argues further that attacks by militias prevented Darfurians from farming land, collecting fireweed for cooking, and collecting grass to feed livestock, which constitute a violation of their right to adequate food. 113. The Complainant submits that the forced eviction and the accompanying human rights abuses in the Darfur region tantamount to violations of the right to life, and the right to security of the person respectively protected under Articles 4 and 6of the Charter, as thousands of people were killed, injured, and raped. 114. The Complainant submits further that attacks carried out by the Respondent State and the Janjaweed have forced thousands of people to flee their homes and habitual places of residence. According to the Complainant, those actions constitute a violation of the right to freedom of residence under Article 12.1 of the Charter. 115. The Complainant states that the forced evictions and destruction of housing and property in the Darfur region violated the right to property enshrined in Article 14 of the Charter. It is the Complainant’s view that those attacks cannot be compared to a lawful dispossession as they have not been carried out “in accordance with the provisions of appropriate law…” and did not contribute to public need nor was it in the general interest of the community. 116. The communication recalls the decision of the Commission in the case of Social and Economic 6 Rights Action Centre and Centre for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria (the SERAC Case) where the Commission found, inter alia, that forced evictions by government forces and private security