244 Mizan Law Review Vol. 6 No.2, December 2012 Regulating the admissibility of cases decided by subregional courts would alleviate problems such as duplication of efforts or the possibility of divergent conclusions. The article addresses this issue in four sections. The first section provides the background on subregional courts and briefly discusses their establishment and human rights mandate. Section 2 provides an overview of Article 56(7) of the African Charter on pending and settled matters in relation to other international and regional human rights instruments. Section 3 discusses the reasons why cases decided by subregional courts should not be admitted before the African Commission or the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Court). 1. Human Rights Mandate of Subregional Courts Most treaties establishing Regional Economic Communities (RECs) that were adopted or revised after the adoption of the African Charter recognise the promotion and protection of human rights as one of their principles.11 These treaties have established judicial bodies that, to some extent, have been dealing with human rights matters. The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice is the pioneer in upholding human rights because it has clear human rights jurisdiction. The East African Court of Justice and the SADC Tribunal have also dealt with human rights matters. 1.1. ECOWAS Community Court of Justice The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was established in 1975 with the objective of economic integration.12 In July 1993, the member states revised the Establishing Treaty.13 One reason for the revision seems to have been the developments in the field of human rights in ECOWAS and the Daniel Amare and Mulugeta Amare v Republic of Mozambique and Mozambique Airlines, application No. 005/2011, Decision of 16 June 2011; National Convention of Teachers Trade Union v The Republic of Gabon, Application No 012/2011, decision 15 December 2011; Delta International Investments S.A., Mr and Mrs A.G.L. De Lange v The Republic of South Africa, Application No 002/2012, decision 30 March 2012; Emmanuel Joseph Uko and Others v The Republic of South Africa, Application No 004/2012; Amir Adam Timan v The Republic of Sudan, Application No 005/2012, decision 30 March 2012; Baghdadi Ali Mahmoudi v. The Republic of Tunisia, Application No 007/2012, decision 26 June 2012. 11 Supra note 6. 12 Solomon Ebobrah (2007), ‘A Rights-Protection Goldmine or A Waiting Volcanic Eruption? Competence of, and Access to, the Human Rights Jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice’, African Human Rights Law Journal 309, Vol. 7, p. 309. 13 Ibid, p. 310.