and Article 11 of the Constitution of Ghana, which accord him certain fundamental rights as an accused person. 10. He contends that he was further denied the right to defence guaranteed under Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter when upon his subpoena, the counsel for the International Finance Commission (IFC) appeared before the Court and argued that the IFC was immune from the court's jurisdiction; and this argument was upheld, even by the Court of Appeal, despite the provision of Article 19(2)(g) × A person charged with a criminal offence shall:- be afforded facilities to examine, in person or by his lawyer, the witnesses called by the prosecution before the court, and to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on the same conditions as those applicable to witnesses called by the prosecution. (http://www.parliament.gh/chapter_five_-_fundamental_human_right_and_freedoms.html Accessed 19.10.2010) of the Constitution of Ghana, which guarantees the accused's right to call witnesses, and the fact that the statutory provisions on the IFC in Ghana do not grant them the claimed immunity from testifying. 11. He noted that Article 19(2)(g) × A person charged with a criminal offence shall: - be afforded facilities to examine, in person or by his lawyer, the witnesses called by the prosecution before the court, and to obtain the attendance and carry out the examination of witnesses to testify on the same conditions as those applicable to witnesses called by the prosecution. (http://www.parliament.gh/chapter_five_-_fundamental_human_right_and_freedoms.html Accessed 19.10.2010) of the Constitution of Ghana is similar to the paragraph 2 (e)(iii) × Examine or have examined, the witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against them of the provisions of the Resolution on the Right to Recourse and Fair Trial of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' meeting at its 11th Ordinary Session in Tunisia, 2nd to 9th May 1992. 12. Lastly, he contended that the continuation of his trial on charges and in the manner that offend the provisions of the African Charter would cause him irreparable damage. Complaint 13. The author of this communication contends that the charge on which his trial is based constitutes a violation of the right against non-retroactive criminalisation under Article 7(2) of the African Charter. 14. He also contends that the manners in which the trial has been, and is being carried out violate Article 7(1) of the African Charter. 15. He seeks the intervention of the African Commission, and urges the [African] Commission to invoke Rule 111 of its Rules of Procedure on provisional measures, and request the Republic of Ghana not to proceed further with his trial until his case has been heard by the African Commission. Procedure 16. The present communication was received by the Secretariat of the African Commission on 27th April 2006. 17. The Secretariat of the [African] Commission acknowledged receipt of the communication to the complainant under letter ACHPR/LPROT/COMM/322/2006/RE of 2nd May 2006, providing the references of the communication and informing the complainant that the communication would be scheduled for consideration by the African Commission at its 39th Ordinary Session to be held in May 2006, in Banjul, The Gambia. 18. At its 39th Ordinary Session, held from 11th to 25th May 2006, in Banjul, The Gambia, the Commission decided to be seized of the communication, but declined to request the Respondent State to take provisional measures in accordance with Rule 111(1) of its Rules of Procedure because the Complainant did not demonstrate the irreparable damage that would be caused if the provisional measures were not taken. 19. On 1st June 2006, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed the parties of the above-mentioned decision and asked them to provide it with more information on the admissibility of the communication, in accordance with Article 56 of the African Charter. It also sent a copy of the communication to the Respondent State. It requested the parties to send their written observations to the Secretariat within three (3) months after notification of the decision. 2