above-mentioned conventions and the Congolese legislation, as the follow-up of the implementation of these standards do not fall under its remit. Additionally, the Complainants have not established a link with the provisions of the said instruments and the rights guaranteed under the Charter. In fact, the Commission will determine whether Articles 1 , 3 , 4 and 7 of the Charter have been violated based on the facts and submissions made available by the parties. 61. Under Article 1 of the Charter, The Member States of the Organization of African Unity, parties to the present Charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them . 62. These provisions impose a positive obligation on States Parties to define the legal framework for the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter within the confines of their respective territories. They do not specifically establish rights and freedoms for individuals. However, the failure of a State to ensure the implementation of its obligation under Article 1 of the Charter can create an avenue for the violation of substantive rights or at least limit their enjoyment. The Commission, in Jawara declared that the violation of any right contained in the Charter is also a violation of Article 1 in that it shows the failure by a State Party to take the necessary measures for the enjoyment of this right. 9 This means that any allegation of violation of this Article must be supported with evidence for disregard of another substantive right guaranteed by the Charter. 63. In the light of the foregoing, prior to the determination of a possible violation of Article 1 , the Commission examines the alleged violation of substantive rights guaranteed by Articles 3 , 4 , and 7 of the Charter. The violation of Article 1 will therefore set off action for the substantive rights protected by each of the above-mentioned provisions on the assumption that the Commission will conclude that these rights have been violated. 64. While Article 3(1) of the Charter stipulates that every individual shall be equal before the law, Article 3(2) provides that every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law. The facts as submitted by the Complainants do not establish at any point that a law in the legal framework of the Respondent State treats individuals differently or protects other categories of citizens more or less better than others. In their submissions on the merits, the Complainants do not provide any evidence either of any statute or discriminatory treatment before the law. The Commission therefore notes that Article 3 of the African Charter was not violated. 65. Under Article 4 of the African Charter, Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right . A literal interpretation of these provisions suggests that the Charter establishes the sanctity of human life but prohibits only arbitrary infringements on the right to life and the physical and moral integrity of his person. It can be inferred that in extreme cases where such a breach is unavoidable, it must not be arbitrary; this means that it must be consistent with the law. 66. Even so, such an approach of the qualification of the right to life is both restrictive and non-objective. The Commission recalls that one of the peculiarities of the African Charter is that it does not include any general limitation clause. The spirit behind the absence of such a general limitation must be understood as the desire to avoid abusive restriction of rights, a restriction which will be applied only under very limited and legally circumscribed conditions. The proportionality and the necessity of the limitation are therefore recalled by the Commission, among others, in the decisions regarding Media Rights Agenda and Others v. Nigeria10 and Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan11 67. It is precisely in the light of this meaning to be ascribed to such a legal framework that the said restriction by the Charter must be understood in relation to the enjoyment of the right to life and other rights as well. Indeed, the Commission has recalled time and again that where the Charter prescribes the restriction of the enjoyment or limitation of a right in accordance with the law, the standard referred to cannot exclusively be targeted at the domestic legislation of the State. Such a law is applicable to both domestic legislation and international standards, while bearing in mind that the domestic legislation itself must be consistent with the international obligations of the State concerned. Thus, the Commission decided 10