44. However, regarding this particular case, the parties before the Mauritanian administrative court are, on the one hand, the Minister of the Interior, representing the government and, on the other hand, the political party UFD/Ere nouvelle. As for the Government Commissioner, he carries out the functions of the representative of the Department of Public Prosecution i.e. representative of the public interest charged to ensure, on behalf of society, the sound application of the laws. In this regard, he can resort to methods of public nature that might not have been resorted to by the parties which might have escaped the vigilance of the reporting judge. 45. Thus, the criticism levelled against the Government Commissioner, who is the representative of the Department of Public Prosecution, before the Administrative Division [sic] of the Supreme Court because of its so called âcollusionâ with the ruling, seemed to lack merit due to the absence of hard facts and concrete material evidence to back such a value judgment. 46. In seeking to know if the decision of the Mauritanian highest court had been sufficiently justified or not, the report on the ruling by the Administrative Chamber of the Mauritanian Supreme Court amply covers all the arguments raised by the Complainantâs defense, as much in their written submissions as in their oral address before the audience and provides responses based on the provisions of the Mauritanian laws. From that moment it is not possible to support this grievance with regard to the aforementioned decision. 47. In this context, the African Commission does not admit the violation of the provisions of Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter for it considers that Mr Ahmed Ould Daddahâs case has been adequately heard by the Administrative Chamber [of the Supreme Court]. On the legality of the regulatory act of dissolution and the illegitimate and unjustified nature of the failings charged upon political party UFD / Ere Nouvelle 48. Article 9(2) of the African Charter stipulates:âevery individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the lawâ . • Article 10(1) of the African Charter stipulates: Â<< every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the lawâ; and • Article 13(1) of the Charter indicates: âevery citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the lawâ. 49. The Complainant alleges that by a Decree No. 2000/116/PM/MITP dated 28th October 2000 and signed by the Prime Minister, the Mauritanian Government dissolved the Union de forces d?(C)mocratiques/Ere nouvelle (UFD/EN), the main opposition party in the country. The same day, Mr Ahmed Ould Daddah, Secretary General of the said political party received, by letter (No. 58/2000) from the Minister of the Interior, Posts and Telecommunications of even date, notification of the measure that the political groupâs buildings and assets have been impounded. 50. According to the Decree governing the dissolution, the measure had been taken in application of the provisions of the Constitution of the 20th July 1991 (Article 11 × Article 11: Parties and political groups shall work together for the formation of the expression of the political will. They shall be formed and shall engage in their activities freely, provided that they respect democratic principles and that, through their objectives or by their actions, they not undermine the national sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the unity of the Nation and of the Republic. The law shall determine the conditions for the creation, the functioning and the dissolution of political parties. and Article 18 × Article 18: Every citizen has the duty of protecting and safe-guarding the independence of the country, its sovereignty and the integrity of its territory. Treason, espionage, and defecting to the enemy as well as all infractions committed with prejudice to the security of the State shall be punished with all the rigor of the law. ) and the Decree No. 91 024 of the 25th July 1991 (Articles 4, 25 and 26) which formally prohibited political parties from destroying the countryâs important image and interests, from inciting intolerance and violence and from organising demonstrations that are likely to compromise public order, peace and 5