nature of the breaches and offences committed by the political party and is therefore in violation of the provisions of Article Article 10.1 of the African Charter”. 178. In the present communication, when put against the above criteria, it is clear that the action of the State to stop the Complainants from publishing their newspapers, close their business premises and seize all their equipment cannot be supported by any genuine reasons. In a civilised and democratic society, respect for the rule of law is an obligation not only for the citizens but for the State and its agents as well. If the State considered the Complainants to be operating illegally, the logical and legal approach would have been to seek a court order to stop them. The State did not do that but decided to use force and in the process infringed on the rights of the Complainants. Holding 179. The action of the Respondent State to stop the Complainants from publishing their newspapers, close their business premises and seize their equipment resulted in them and their employees not being able to express themselves through their regular medium; and to disseminate information. The confiscation of the Complainants’ equipment and depriving them of a source of income and livelihood is also a violation of their right to property guaranteed under Article 14. By closing their business premises and preventing the Complainants’ and their employees to work [sic], the Respondent State also violatedArticle 15 of the Charter. Thus, whether motivated by the Supreme Court’s decision or through its own initiative, the action of the Respondent State resulted to an infringement of the rights of the Complainants. The Commission thus finds the State in violation of Articles 9.2, 14 and 15 of the African Charter. 180. The African Commission thus finds the Respondent State has not violated Articles 3 and 7 of the African Charter as alleged by the Complainants. 181. The African Commission however finds the Respondent State in violation of Articles 9.2, 14 and 15 of the African Charter. 182. Since a violation of any provision of the Charter necessarily connotes the State Party’s obligation under Article 1, the African Commission also finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 1 of the African Charter. The African Commission thus recommends that the Respondent State provides adequate compensation to the Complainants for the loss they have incurred as a result of this violation. th Adopted at the 6 Extra Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ th rd Rights, 30 March-3 April, 2009, Banjul, The Gambia. Footnotes 1. Advisory Opinion OC 9/87, also Annual Report 39/96 Case 11.673 Santiago Marzioni. 2. See Article 56 of the African Charter. 3. See African Commission, Information Sheet No. 3 th 4. Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda/Nigeria, 13 Annual Activity Report of the OAU[sic], 1999-2000. 5. Sir Dawda Jawara v The Gambia, communication 147/95-149/96. 6. Communication 101/1993. 7. Communication 293/2004 8. 347 U.S 483 (1954) 9. www.legal-explanations.com