The African Commission's analysis on the Merits 127. In considering the Communication, the Commission notes that in his Arguments on the Merit, the Complainant has submitted an amended set of prayers in which the Complainant seeks certain reliefs directly from the Commission and drops the request for the Communication to be transmitted to the Court for a decision on the Merit. The Commission will therefore address the Communication on the basis of the amended set of prayers submitted by the Complainant. 128. The Commission will first address the Sixth Respondent State's observation on the Admissibility of the Communication. From its decision on the Admissibility of the present Communication, the Commission recalls that all the relevant documents and submissions of the Complainant were transmitted to all the fourteen (14) Respondent States along with the required request for the Respondent States to submit their respective observations on the Admissibility of the Communication.78 However, only two out of the fourteen Respondent States submitted their observations on the Admissibility of the Communication. The Submissions by those two Respondent States were accordingly considered by the Commission in its determination of the Admissibility of the Communication. The Commission notes that under its operative Rules of Procedure, it can only review a decision of inadmissibility.79 Accordingly, the Commission will not reopen or review its decision on Admissibility at this stage. 129. On the Merits of the Communication, the Commission notes with regret the fact that only one out of the fourteen Respondent States has submitted its arguments. In line with its Rules of Procedure, the Commission proceeds to make its determination on the basis of the Complainant's submission and the single Respondent State submission available. 130. The Commission notes the Complainant's contention that the acts and omissions of the Respondent States that have led to the suspension and subsequent permanent ouster of the SADC Tribunal amount to a violation of the provisions of the African Charter but also of the SADC Treaty and the ICCPR. Recalling Article 45(2) of the African Charter which provides that one of the functions of the Commission shall be to "Ensure the protection of human and peoples' rights under conditions laid down by the present Charter", it is the Commission's view that its competence is limited to facilitating State Party implementation of the rights guaranteed in the African Charter. 131. Although, Articles 60 and 61 of the Charter permit the Commission to draw inspiration from other sources of international human rights law in the execution of its mandate and functions, those provisions do not authorise the Commission to supervise the application and implementation of other international treaties such as the SADC Treaty. Accordingly, the Commission will restrict itself to a determination of the responsibility of the Respondent States arising from the provisions of the African Charter that have been invoked by the Complainant. 132. The Complainant argues that the acts and omissions of the Respondent States vis-?-vis the SADC Tribunal amount to a violation of Articles 7 and 26 of the African Charter in the sense that they restrict the Victims' right of access to court as guaranteed in those provisions of the Charter. In order to properly address the Complainant's submission, the Commission needs to first engage the Sixth Respondent State's argument that it does not bear responsibility for the alleged wrongs because it has a separate legal personality from SADC and it has no power of direction as regards SADC and its organs and institutions. The Commission agrees with the Complainant that the correct position of contemporary international law is that in appropriate cases, Member States of an International Organisation could bear direct responsibility for the wrongful acts and omissions of that International Organisation especially where the rights of third parties are involved.80 133. The Commission recalls that the international responsibility of a state is invoked where the state acts or omits to act in spite of the fact that the action or omission violates an international obligation that the state had taken on either by Treaty or by any other source of International Law. On the basis of its argument that it has not itself breached any obligation under the Constitutive Act of the AU or the African Charter, the Sixth Respondent State seeks to avoid any direct responsibility for the alleged violations on the grounds that if any violations have occurred, those violations have been occasioned by SADC as an International Organisation. 134. In the opinion of the Commission, the current trend in International Law is that where states transfer sovereign powers to an International Organisation and in the course of carrying out the functions assigned to it the International Organisation81 occasions wrongs that would have invoked the international responsibility of the Member States individually had they acted on their own, the States can individually bear responsibility for those wrongful acts and omissions of the International Organisation. The 16