264 Mizan Law Review Vol. 6 No.2, December 2012 Although a reference from subregional courts to the African Court may ensure a uniform interpretation of the African Charter, it overburdens the Court. Besides, there is no sufficient legal basis for making such references. Member states of RECs, subregional courts and other organs of RECs are bound by the provisions of their treaties according to which decisions of subregional courts are final and binding. Thus, their reference from subregional courts’ decision would be violation of treaties establishing these courts. An inter-state reference from decisions of subregional courts, albeit unlikely, may be made by a state party to the African Charter (which is not a member of a particular REC) against another state party (which is a member of a particular REC). For example, Kenya which is not a member state of ECOWAS may refer an inter-state complaint to the African Court against, say, Ghana which is a member state of ECOWAS. In such scenarios, the state making reference would not be bound by the finality clause. Yet such reference would encounter the defence of res judicata as discussed below. Treaties establishing subregional courts do not also bind individuals and NGOs. However, their reference to the African Court will not fulfil admissibility requirement under Article 56(7) of the African Charter as discussed below. 3.3. Prohibition of Double Jeopardy In Common Law legal system, double jeopardy means ‘the fact of being prosecuted twice for substantially the same offense.’151 The corresponding term in civil law legal system is non bis in idem.152 An accused person faced with the risk of double jeopardy can raise the plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. Autrefois acquit is ‘a plea by a person indicted for a crime for which he or she had previously been tried and acquitted’ while autrefois convict is ‘a plea by a person indicted for a crime for which he or she had previously been tried and convicted.’153 The principle that a person should not be prosecuted twice for the same crime is recognised as a human rights principle.154 * 152 153 154 1 Bryan A. Garner (ed.) (2000), Black’s Law Dictionary (St. Paul: West Group), p. 506. See Garner, supra note 151, p. 1665. The legal maxim ‘non bis in idem ’ or its imperative ‘ne bis in idem ’ literally means ‘not twice for the same thing.’ The maxim expresses the principle that ‘a person shall not be twice tried for the same crime.’ 153 Susan Ellis Wild (ed) (2006), Webster’s New World Law Dictionary (Hoboken: Wiley Publishing, Inc.) p. 38. 154 See art 14(7) of ICCPR. See Nihal Jayawickrama (2002), The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law: National, Regional and International Jurisprudence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p.584. Jayawickrama argues that the right recognized in art 14(7) of ICCPR is broader in scope than the common law principle of autrefois convict. 152