violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force”. 57. The complaint alleges that prior to expulsion, the Complainants were held in several Angolan detention centres, including Canfunfu, Saurimo and Kisangili. They were held there arbitrarily as they knew of no laws forbidding their residence and work in Angola prior to their arrest, and that during their detention they were afforded no explanations as to their arrest and detention and no the opportunity to speak to a lawyer or go before a judge. 58. The complaint alleges that circumstances of this case made it impossible for Complainants to access the Angolan courts or other national organs to question their arrest, detention and deportation. The abrupt manner in which they were arrested, detained and deported denied them of the opportunity to engage a lawyer to take their case to court to challenge the regularity and legality of their arrest, detention and deportation. The African Commission has ruled that every individual has the right to appeal to competent national organs for violations of his/her fundamental rights, and as such, if one is 12 13 detained without charge or trial and there exists no legal remedy to challenge the detention, it is a clear violation of Article 7(1)(a). 59. In communication 71/1992 - RADDHO v Zambia, where the deportees similarly were denied “the opportunity to seize the Zambian courts to challenge their detention or deportation,” the African 14 Commission found this to constitute violation of the deportees’ rights under Article 7 . Similarly, in Communication 159/1996 - UIDH, FIDH, RADDHO, ONDH v Angola, the African Commission held that the State failed to afford the victims with the “opportunity to challenge the matter before the competent jurisdictions which should have ruled on their detention, as well as on the regularity and legality of the decision to expel them was a violation of Article 7(1) a of the African Charter. 60. The African Commission is thus of the view that, given the facts before it, the Respondent State is thus in violation ofArticle 7(1)(a) of the African Charter. Violation of Article 12(4) of the African Charter on Due Process before Expulsion 61. Article 12(4) of the African Charter provides that “a non-national legally admitted in a territory of a State Party to the present Charter, may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law.” 62. The complaint alleges that the victims in the present communication were subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention and subsequent expulsion and were denied due process of law before their expulsion from Angola. Prior to their deportation, Complainants were not taken before a court of law to answer any charge concerning their activities and stay in Angola or without a decision or order made in accordance with the applicable laws. It is alleged by the Complainants that the victims were legally in the territory of the Respondent State, and when they presented their legal documents to the authorities, they were either confiscated or destroyed. The African Commission finds no contrary submission from the Respondent State to challenge these allegations. 63. In communication 159/1996 UIDH, FIDH, RADDHO, ONDH v Angola, the African Commission stated that although African States may expel non-nationals from their territories, the measure that they take in such circumstances should not be taken at the detriment of the enjoyment of human rights, and that while the Charter does not bar a State’s right to deport non-nationals per se, it does 15 require deportations to take place in a manner consistent with the due process of law. 64. The African Charter’s requirement of due process as outlined above is also shared by similar systems elsewhere. The Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], for instance, had expressed a similar concern over the treatment of aliens being deported from Switzerland when it held the latter liable for degrading treatment and use of excessive 16 force resulting on some occasions in the death of the deportee during deportation of aliens. The Committee recommended that Switzerland should “ensure that all cases of forcible deportation are carried out in a manner which is compatible with articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant and that “restraint 17 methods do not affect the life and physical integrity of the persons concerned”. 65. The African Commission notes that the import of this provision under the African Charter is to ensure that due process is followed before legally admitted non-nationals are expelled from a Member State. Very clearly, the situation as presented by the Complainant did not afford those expelled due