22. The Complainants submit that in that Communication, the Complainants alleged the violation by former French Cameroon of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7(1), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17(1), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23(1), and 24 of the African Charter and ultimately sought the independence of the territory of the Southern Cameroons. 23. The Complainants submit further that in its decision reached at its 45th Ordinary Session on 27 May 2009, the Commission found that the Republic of Cameroun has violated Articles I, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 (I), 10, 11, 19 and 26 the Charter. The Commission determined that Articles 12, 13, 17 (I), 20, 21, 22, 23 (1) and 24 have not been violated . 24. The Complainants submit that the Commission recoIIlll},~x:'ded that,ji~heRespondent State should among other things enter into constructive dialqgue with thc'Complainants, and in particular SCNC and SCAPO, to resolve the constituti6nal issues, as well as grievances. ..;, -, 25. The Complainants allege that since this decision of the Commission, no attempthas been made by the government of the Republic of'CamerotUito eriga:g~,inany dialogue. They allege that none of the recommendations made by the Commissiori'has been implemented by the Republic of Cameroon and the Commission itself-has not invoked Rule 112 of its Rules of Procedure. ' ' 26. The Complainants state that the presertf Communication is motivated by the events unfolding in Cameroon. The Complainant submit that after several months of complaining, sometime in JtlIle/July, 2016, La"Y)'ers from the Southern Cameroons, belonging to the Cqmrnon LaW'~¢.gaJ,9Ystem, d~w~i~golsand refused to go to Court citing a catalogue of marginalization, discrimination, oppr'ession and unfair treatment of the people of the Southern Cameroons and in the use of the English language and the Common law. 27. The Complainants submit that on 6 Oct~ber 2016, the Common Law Lawyers Bar Associations in the Southern Cameroons (aka Cameroun Northwest and Southwest Regions) called a 4-day "sit-down strike from all court actions". The Lawyers stated that their sp-ike a~ti9~1" was predicated on the fact that their memos and demands to the govenlfuent had.:~:~£ell ignored, and that they were further vexed by the fact that when some of their members decided to exercise their constitutional right of freedom of expression through a press conference, the French-speaking administrative officials who are the ones administering the Southern Cameroons, imposed a ban on any meeting by Lawyers under-pain of imprisonment. As if this stifling of freedom of assembly and of expression was not enough the Lawyers were allegedly subjected to police harassment and humiliation.