process of law for protection of the rights that have been alleged to be violated by the Respondent State and that they were not allowed access to the remedies under domestic law to at least challenge, 18 if not reverse, their expulsion. The African Commission thus holds the Respondent State in violation of the provisions of Article 12(4) of the African Charter. Alleged violation of Article 12(5) 66. Article 12(5) of the African Charter reads “the mass expulsion of non-nationals shall be prohibited. Mass expulsion shall be that which is aimed at national, racial, ethnic or religious groups” . 67. In the present communication, the Complainant alleges that the group of Gambians was expelled 19 from Angola en masseon May 23, 2004. In addition to the 217 Gambians, tens of thousands of other non-nationals have been expelled from Angola in the same year. The complaint further alleges that the Angolan government itself reported that 126,247 foreigners had been repatriated as of 14 May 2004. It quotes a United Nations estimate that 3,500 of this number originate from West Africa, with 20 much of the remainder coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. It adds that nationals from many different countries have been affected, including individuals from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea Conakry, Mali, Mauritania, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal and Sierra Leone. These expulsions were hastily carried out, permitting little in the way of advance planning and coordination of 21 resettlement assistance for those expelled. It claims that the number, coupled with the subsequent expulsions under such conditions constitute mass expulsions under Article 12(5) of the African Charter. 68. The African Commission has ruled that "mass expulsion was a special threat to human rights,” adding that a government action specially directed at specific national, racial, ethnic or religious groups is generally qualified as discriminatory in the sense that, none of its characteristics 22 has any legal basis or could constitute a source of particular incapacity. Similarly, the African Commission, held that: “African States in general and the Republic of Angola in particular are faced with many challenges, mainly economic. In the face of such difficulties, States often resort to radical measures aimed at protecting their nationals and their economies from non-nationals. Whatever the circumstances may be, however, such measures should not be taken at the detriment of the enjoyment of human rights. Mass expulsions of any category of persons, whether on the basis of nationality, religion, ethnic, racial or other considerations, "constitute special violation of human 23 rights." 69. The Respondent State has failed to advance any argument to justify its actions. As shown above, the position of the African Commission regarding mass expulsions is clear. And as the Complainant avers, “simply because the victims were a part of a larger group of non-nationals, not just Gambians, but also other West and Central Africans, does not negate discrimination on the part of the Respondent State,” and that the fact that “so many aliens received the same treatment is tantamount to an admission of a violation of Article 12(5).” Moreover, the fact that the deportees as a group were arrested over a period of several months at different places and may have been served with deportation orders on different dates does not qualify, for purposes of the African Commission, to be 24 sufficient to negate the en masse element of the expulsions. The African Commission underscores that any expulsions or deportations must comply with the human rights obligations found in the African Charter. Accordingly, the African Commission finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 12(5) of the African Charter. 70. The African Charter is not unique in prohibiting mass expulsions. The European Convention on Human Rights provides some protection against expulsion. The Fourth Protocol to the same Convention similarly prohibits collective expulsion of aliens as well as the expulsion of nationals from their own state. Its Seventh Protocol prohibits expulsion of an alien lawfully resident in a state except when a decision to that effect is taken in accordance with law. Here, the person concerned is entitled to submit reasons against the expulsion, have the case reviewed and be represented for these purposes before a competent authority.