125. They aver that the use of the military in illegal land occupation is common, particularly in the capital Juba. Despite the problem being recognized by the Respondent State in the 2018 peace Agreement, with a provision demanding the Respondent State to "address issues of land grabbing and other malpractices involving land" (Article 4.8.2.1.1 of the R-ARCSS), the Respondent State has not made any orders intended to curb the situation and to permanently prevent individual members of the military from abusing their military powers by violently confiscating civilian land. 126. They further submit that the Respondent State has the duty to promote and ensure through teaching, education and publication, the respect of the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter and to see to it that these freedoms and rights as well as corresponding obligations and duties are understood by its members of the security sector and the law enforcement. By not d()~n&so, itconstitutes continues violation of Article 25 of the Charter. . Alleged relegation of the respondent State in its duty to guarante,e the independence of the courts (Article 26) . 127. The Complainants submit that, contrary to the obligations placed on States by Article 3(h) of the Constitutive Act el1joinsAfrican States to promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordarice "Y'iththe African Charter, the government system of checks to prevent-human rights :violations is flawed and ineffective, and that the Constitution of Sortth Sudan has no provision for the effective enforcement of the Bills of Rights which is a guarantee of compliance with the Charter. " , .>~ /~-, ~}( 128. They also submit that the Constihitional provision of Article 9 (4), on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to uphold the Bills of Rights is shallow and weak in enforcing the Bills of Rights and that there are no effective enforcement mechanisms in the constitution that can make the domestication of the Charter realistic, practical and effective. They state that, in particular, there are no constitutional provisions for courts to enforce the Bills of Rights through various writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus and certiorari and a provision allowing individuals to apply to the courts directly for these writs to enforce their constitutional rights, in an ,easy and effective procedure and in a shortest period possible. 129. They further submit that there is no effective constitutional supervisory jurisdiction for the courts to compel the Executive branch to adhere to the constitution and protect and uphold the provisions of the Charter, and that the Respondent State violates Article 26 of the Charter by not allowing the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter. Respondent State's Submission on the Merits 130. The Commission's Analysis on the Merits 77th Ordinary Session of the ACHPR