of rights enshrined therein, such rules and regulations may not be allowed to nullify the very rights and liberties they are to regulate.”32 161. The Court reiterates as it has held in its earlier judgments, that, examining an alleged violation of Article 1 of the Charter involves a determination not only of whether the measures adopted by the Respondent State are available but also if these measures were implemented in order to achieve the intended object and purpose of the Charter. 33 162. Consequently, whenever a substantive right of the Charter is violated due to the Respondent State’s failure to meet these obligations, Article 1 of the Charter will be found to have been violated as well. 163. In the present case, the Court has found that the Respondent State has violated Articles 2, 7(1) and 7(1)(b) of the Charter. Consequently, the Court holds that the Respondent State has also violated Article 1 of the Charter. VIII. REPARATIONS 164. The Applicants pray the Court to order the Respondent State to put in place constitutional and legislative measures so as to guarantee the rights provided for in the Charter and other international human rights instruments. 165. Furthermore, the Applicants seek an order that all suspects and accused persons charged with unbailable offences be released on bail within one (1) month from the date of this decision under bail conditions to be set by the Respondent State’s courts, based on the circumstance of each case. 32 Mtikila v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 109. Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (2018) 2 AfCLR 477, §§ 149150 and Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, § 124. 33 36