provide the [African] Commission with their reactions, as well as their comments and arguments as regards the decision on merit. th 11. On 18 November 1997, letters were addressed to the parties to inform them of the [African] Commission‟s decision. th 12. On 24 February 1998, the Secretariat of the [African] Commission wrote to the OAU Secretary General requesting clarification on the terms of the embargo imposed on Burundi. th 13. On 19 May 1998, the Secretariat received the Zambian government‟s reaction to the allegations made against it by the plaintiff. It claims that the sanctions imposed on Burundi ensued from a decision th taken by Great Lakes countries in reaction to the coup d‟état of 25 July 1996, which brought Major Pierre Buyoya to power, ousting the democratically elected government of President Ntibantuganya. 14. According to Zambia, the said sanctions were aimed at putting pressure on the regime of Major Buyoya with a view to causing it to restore constitutional legality, reinstate Parliament, which is the symbol of democracy, and lift the ban on political parties. It was also aimed at causing the regime to immediately and unconditionally initiate negotiations with all Burundian groups so as to re-establish peace and stability in the country, in accordance with the decisions of the Arusha regional Summit of st 31 July 1996. th 15. Regarding the allegation that Zambia violated Resolution 2625 (XXV), adopted on 24 October 1970 by the General Assembly of the UN, the Zambian government claims that the UN Security Council, in Resolution 1072 (1996), upheld the decision of the Arusha regional Summit to impose sanctions on Burundi. 16. Furthermore, Zambia states that it has derived no benefit of any sort from the embargo imposed on Burundi. On the contrary – the embargo had affected not only the inhabitants of Burundi, but also those of the States that imposed it. In Zambia for example, it continues, many workers at the Mpulungu port were sent on unpaid leave because there was no work, as a result of the embargo. The Zambian State thereby lost many billion Kwacha in revenue. This, according to the Zambian government, is the cost Zambia accepted to pay to contribute to the international effort to promote democracy, justice and the rule of law. 17. Regarding the allegation of violation by Zambia of Articles 3(1), (2) and (3) of the Charter of the OAU on non-interference in the internal affairs of member States, the Zambian government recalls that the OAU, through its Secretariat, has held many meetings on the situation in Burundi. It concludes, therefrom that the decisions of the Arusha Regional Summit were endorsed by the OAU. Moreover, it points out that the sanctions imposed on Burundi were decided in consultation with the UN Organisation and the OAU. 18. As regards the allegation of violation by Zambia of the provisions of Article 4 of the African Charter on the right to life and physical and moral integrity, Zambia points out that the Sanctions Monitoring Committee had authorised the importation into Burundi, through UN agencies, of essential items such as infants‟ food, medical and pharmaceutical products for emergency treatment, among others. It concludes therefore that the embargo is far from being a total blockade. 19. To the allegation of violation of Article 17 of the African Charter on the right to education, Zambia responds with the same arguments indicated above. 20. Zambia stresses that it is a democratic state. This, it states, is enshrined in Article 1.1 of its Constitution, which states that the country “…is a sovereign, unitary, indivisible, multiparty democratic State”. It thereby justifies what it refers to as its support for the ongoing democratisation process in Africa and claims to abhor regimes led by ethnic minorities. The Great Lakes countries in general and Zambia in particular, it continues, were right in imposing sanctions on Burundi to bring about the restoration of democracy and discourage coups d‟état in Africa. th 21. On 8 September 1998, the Secretariat received the reaction of the Tanzanian government on the communication under consideration. The latter rejected the allegations made against its country and ended with a plea for inadmissibility of the communication on the grounds among others that it contains several contradictions which were only aimed at defending the aggrieved State‟s interests. This country proceeded to argue its case as follows: 22. “There is great confusion in the facts as presented by the Complainant; there are also many lies contained therein, particularly the accusation that Tanzania was preparing to send its army to Burundi