situated than local courts in advancing human and peoples' rights in Member States. 53. That underscored, however, the African Commission does not agree with the Respondent State's implied restrictive construction of these two doctrines relating to the role of the African Commission, which, if not set straight, would be tantamount to ousting the African Commission's mandate to monitor and oversee the implementation of the African Charter. Whatever discretion these two doctrines may allow Member States in promoting and protecting human and peoples' rights domestically, they do not deny the African Commission's mandate to guide, assist, supervise and insist upon Member States on better promotion and protection standards should it find domestic practices wanting. They do allow Member States to primarily take charge of the implementation of the African Charter in their respective countries. In doing so, they are informed by the trust the African Charter has on Member States to fully recognise and give effect to the rights enshrined therein. What the African Commission would not allow, however, is a restrictive reading of these doctrines, like that of the Respondent State, which advocates for the hands-off approach by the African Commission on the mere assertion that its domestic procedures meet more than the minimum requirements of the African Charter. Holding For these reasons, the African Commission finds no violation of the Complainant's rights as alleged. Adopted at the 36th Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, 23rd November 7th December 2004, Dakar, Senegal. 7