showed respect for the rule of law. The legal processes in Zambia did not violate the principles of the Charter. The Commission must, therefore, accept that William Steven Banda was not a Zambian by birth or descent. 41. This does not mean, however, that the Commission should not raise questions of law especially as the Zambian courts did not consider the obligations of Zambia under the African Charter. The court also failed to rule on the alleged reason for the deportation, namely, that his presence was likely "to endanger peace and good order in Zambia...". There was no judicial inquiry on the basis in law and in terms of administrative justice for relying on this "opinion" of the Minister of Home Affairs for the action taken. The fact that Banda was not a Zambian by itself, does not justify his deportation. It must be proved that his presence in Zambia was in violation of the laws. To the extent that neither Banda nor Chinula were supplied with reasons for the action taken against them means that the right to receive information was denied to them (Article 9(1)). 42. The Rapporteur invited the parties to give guidance on the authority of the Charter where it was in contradiction to domestic law. That seems relevant because Zambia ratified the Charter by Executive Act. That means that there is legislative process that domesticates international human rights treaties. Mr Mulonda affirmed Zambia's commitment to abide by the treaties it is party to. He also confirmed that Zambia operated a dual legal system and that the Charter is not considered to be a self executing measure. Nonetheless, Zambia accepted the binding character of the Charter in Zambia. 43. By all accounts, though, Banda was in possession of Zambian national registration certificate and a passport. For many years he freely used these without challenge. Immediately following the verdict of the Supreme Court, he voluntarily presented himself to the police but he was forcibly deported. This meant that he was denied the opportunity to pursue the option of applying for citizenship by naturalisation in terms of the Citizenship Act. Granted, the government argues that Banda had obtained the documents of registration and Passport by making false claims about his place of birth. He could not therefore, be approaching the court with clean hands. The unstated implication being that the chances of his obtaining naturalisation were negligible. In truth, of course, the Court did not say that Banda was an illegal immigrant. It simply disputed his claims to being Zambian by birth. It was not proved, therefore, that Banda was in Zambia illegally. It was not proved, therefore, that Banda was in Zambia illegally. 44. Zambia has contravened Article 7 of the Charter in that he was not allowed to pursue the administrative measures, which were opened to him in terms of the Citizenship Act. More importantly, Zambia is in breach of Article 7(2) which says that "no one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed..." By all accounts, Banda's residence and status in Zambia had been accepted. He had made a contribution to the politics of the country. The provisions of Article 12(4) have been violated. 45. The allegations of violations of Articles 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 may now be addressed. The evidence that William Steven Banda was a political opponent of the ruling MMD cannot be lost sight of. The manner in which he was treated was demeaning of the dignity and status of somebody of his standing in society. It appears that he was singled out for action because of his ethnic origin, which incidentally, is also found in Zambia. The authorities insisted on deporting him to Malawi even though, he told them that he knew nobody there. There was no compelling evidence that he had roots in Malawi having lived in Zambia, by their own admission, since about 1964. Counsel for Zambia argued that Banda was "accepted" by the Malawi immigration authorities. Whatever may have been the "legal" basis for such "acceptance", Malawi courts have ruled that they were not citizens of Malawi. In addition, unlawful deportation could not be said to obliterate their rights in Zambia. 46. John Lyson Chinula was in an even worse predicament. He was not given any opportunity to contest the deportation order. Surely, government cannot say that Chinula had gone underground in 1974 having overstayed his visiting permit. Chinula, by all account, was a prominent businessman and politician. If government wished to act against him they could have done so. That they did not, does not justify the arbitrary nature of the arrest and deportation on 31st August 1994. He was entitled to have his case heard in the Courts of Zambia. Zambia has violated Article 7 of the Charter. Having made that finding, the findings in para. 30 above also obtain in this circumstance. 47. The Commission had requested provisional measures in terms of Rule 111 of the Rules of Procedure. Zambia must be required to allow the return of William Steven Banda with a view to making application for citizenship by naturalisation. No evidence was led before the Commission for compensation. The evidence is that Banda had lost his job as governor after the 1991 elections. No award for compensation is called for. 4