constitutional demands vis-à-vis the claim for the right to self-determination of the Southern Cameroonian people. 183. The Complainants allege that the 1993 Buea and 1994 Bamenda Anglophone conferences submitted constitutional proposals, which were ignored by the Respondent State. This forced the Complainants to conduct a signature referendum of Southern Cameroonians in 1995, which endorsed separation. 184. The Complainants argued that the people of Southern Cameroon through the 1993, 1994 conferences, and the 1995 signature referendum, raised issues of constitutional, political and economic marginalisation. They allege further that the Constitution adopted by the Respondent State in December 1995 did not address their appeals for autonomy. The Commission is of the view that these complaints merit its determination. 185. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State’s refusal or failure to address their grievances amounted to a violation of Article 20. They claim therefore that they are entitled to exercise their right to self-determination under the Charter. The Respondent State responds that these grievances constitute a secessionist agenda by SCNC and SCAPO. It denies that the Complainants are entitled to exercise the right to self-determination under Article 20. 186. The Respondent State submitted that the Buea Declaration of 3 April 1993 recognised that the Southern Cameroonians had freely joined La Republique du Cameroun in 1961, and further that the transition to a unitary state in 1972 was approved by both Francophones and Anglophones who voted 98.26% and 97.9% respectively through a national referendum. It states further that the so called referendum of September 1995 by SCNC does not invalidate the 1972 data. The Respondent State doubts the accuracy of the referendum. It states that: “[s]ince 1996, the State of Cameroon is a unitary decentralised State, adopted by members of parliament, including those from the Anglophone part of the country. Legal instruments relating to putting in place of the decentralised regional and local authorities …were enacted in July 2004”. 187. The Respondent State argues further that: “[t]he self-determination of the “people” of Southern Cameroon, following the logic of the Commission (cf per the Katanga case) would be understandable where there are tangible evidence of massive violations of human rights, and where there is evidence ascertaining the refusal of the nationals of Southern Cameroon, the right to take part in the management of public affairs of the State of Cameroon. There is no such proof…” 188. The Commission recalls that the Katangese had urged the Commission to recognise the independence of Katanga. In reaching its decision in that case, the Commission stated the following: “The claim is brought under Article 20.1 of the African Charter….There are no allegations of specific breaches of other human rights apart from the claim of the denial of self-determination. All peoples have a right to self-determination. There may however be controversy as to the definition of peoples and the content of the right. The issue in this case is not self-determination for all Zairoise as a people but specifically the Katangese. Whether the Katangese consist of one or more ethnic groups is, for this purpose immaterial and no evidence has been adduced to that effect. The Commission believes that self-determination may be exercised in any of the following ways: independence, self-government, local government, federalism, confederalism, unitarism or any form of relations that accords with the wishes of the people but fully cognisant of other recognised principles such as sovereignty and territorial integrity.” 25 189. The Respondent State condemns the Complainants’ secessionist agenda. This Commission stated in the Katangese case that, it; “…. is obliged to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire, a member of the OAU and a party to the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights.” 190. The Commission notes that the Republic of Cameroon is a party to the Constitutive Act (and was a State party to the OAU Charter). It is a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as well. The Commission is obliged to uphold the territorial integrity of the Respondent State. As a consequence, the Commission cannot envisage, condone or encourage secession, as a form of