th 32. At its 24 Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, after hearing the Rwandan Ambassador, who presented his government‟s position on this affair, and considering the responses of Zambia and Tanzania, the [African] Commission decided to address a recommendation to the Chairman in Office of the OAU, with a copy to the Secretary General, requesting the States involved in the affair to find means of reducing the effects of the embargo. It was however stressed that this should be without any prejudice to the decision that the [African] Commission would take on the merits of the communication. 33. The Secretariat wrote to the parties informing them of the African Commission‟s decision. th 34. On 26 March 1999, the Secretariat received the reaction of the Author of the communication to the Tanzanian and Zambian memoranda. In its view, Tanzania‟s argument that it did not violate Article 4 of the African Charter is baseless. It argues that “after the coup d‟état security in the country improved considerably. On the contrary, the embargo deprived the Burundian people of their basic needs, especially as regards health care and nutrition, claiming many victims” . 35. It continues: “Tanzania claims not to have violated Article 17 of the Charter with the argument that the embargo was relaxed in April 1997. This shows a contrario that before the relaxation, which had no effect in reality, the said provision had been violated; that is from 31/07/96 to April 1997”. 36. According to the plaintiff, “Tanzania also claims not to have violated Article 22 of the Charter with the argument that of all human rights, it is what it refers to as the „political right‟ that matters most”[/quote]. It continues by saying that Tanzania‟s argument is unfounded since “…the right to life for example is more important than any „political right‟. The choice is clear between someone who takes your life and someone who denies you your right to elect your head of State”. 37. According to the plaintiff, “all groups that are attacking Burundi – PALIPEHUTU, FROLINA, CNDD... etc. – operate from that country”. 38. The Complainant avers, “Tanzania claims not to have violated Articles 3(1), (2) and (3) of the OAU Charter. But imposing on Burundi a manner whereby it can „resolve‟ its internal problems, under the pressure of an embargo, undoubtedly constitutes interference in the internal affairs of Burundi”. 39. The Complainant continues: “it is evident that Tanzania violated international law by imposing an embargo on Burundi. ASPBurundi hereby calls on the [African Commission] to declare that country guilty and condemn it to pay damages” . As regards the memorandum submitted by Zambia, the plaintiff states that: 40. “Zambia claims not to have violated Resolution 2625 (XXV) of the [UN] with the argument that the UN had approved the decision to impose the embargo. Whether the UN approved the measure or not changes nothing, for the initiative should have come from the [UN] and not the other way around! Hence, the decision to impose the embargo had no legal basis”. 41. It continues: “along the same line of thought, Zambia claims that it did not violate Articles 3(1), (2) and (3) of the OAU Charter for the reason that the OAU had approved the embargo. Once again, the approval came after the fact. It was not the OAU that mandated these countries to impose the embargo”. 42. According to the petitioner, “Zambia claims [...] that it did not violate Article 4 of the [African Charter] with the argument that in April 1997, some alleviation measures were introduced. ASP-Burundi points out that this provision was violated from the time of the imposition of the embargo (August [19]96) to the date those measures were introduced (April [19]97), and the measures did not even bear any effect in reality”. From the foregoing, the Complainant draws the following conclusion: 43. “It is abundantly clear that Zambia, as well as Tanzania, have violated international law and that this violation caused very serious injury to the Burundian people. ASP-Burundi therefore urges the [African Commission] to declare Zambia guilty of this and to constrain it to pay the relevant damages”. th 44. On 24 March 2000, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting a copy of the communication submitted by ASP-Burundi. The request was met, and a reaction is still being awaited.