security. 51. The Complainant contends that the acts by the leaders of the political parties mentioned in Articles 4 & 5 of the Decree No. 91 â 024 of 25 th July 1991 relative to political parties and liable to lead to the dissolution of their organisation (inciting intolerance and violence, organising demonstrations likely to compromise public order, peace and security, setting up of military or paramilitary organisations, armed militia or combat groups) are already considered by Articles 83 and others of the Mauritanian Criminal Code as offences or punishable crimes. 52. The Complainant points out that the dissolution of the UFD/EN is justifiable by the inflammatory nature of a certain number of documents and expressions attributed to its leaders. In other words, it is the abuse of the freedom of expression by the leaders of this party which gave rise to its expulsion from the Mauritanian political arena. The Complainant specifies that such assertions are unacceptable in a State which is said to base its activities on the principles of democracy and on the principles of the African Charter. Indeed, there had been, not only prejudice to the freedom of expression, to the right of association and to the right of the leaders of the UFD/EN to participate in the management of public affairs in Mauritania, but also to the fundamental rights of the said party which, through this measure, has lost all its assets. 53. The Complainant indicates that the notions of the right of association and of the freedom of expression are complementary in a democratic state, in the sense that the association or the political party is, the means par excellence, for the freedom of expression. It is well known that political parties contribute greatly to the political debate of democratic states, notably through elections which are organised periodically to guarantee the freedom of choice of its leaders by the citizens. 54. In paying special attention to the terms used in the partyâs declarations, in the statements of its leaders and indeed to the context in which these had been published or delivered, the Complainant voices his surprise to note that the authors of this measure were unaware that the activities for which the UFD/EN was being blamed had taken place in the context of âtraining and the expression of the political will of its membersâ and in the context of Mauritanians enjoying their right to be differently informed about the political, economic and social situation of their country. 55. The Complainant alleges that the contentious statements and publications had been made and/or distributed during a time when Mauritania was making pre-campaign preparations for the legislative and local elections for the year 2001. In such a context, each party was endeavouring, with due respect for democratic rules, to put its opponent in a position of weakness before the voters during the electoral campaign. 56. The Complainant exposes that it is for this reason that the statement of the 17th September 1998 had been drafted following the dissemination, by several reliable sources, of information relating to the discovery of a case of misappropriation of public funds, particularly of the aid received from development partners, of financial chaos and of the mismanagement of public affairs1 . 57. According to the Complainant, the objective of this document was, among other things, to remind Mauritaniaâs partners that the Mauritanian citizen, in view of the total silence of the authorities on this issue âhas the right and the duty to ask for explanations and to know what happened to the money obtained in his name and which should be refundedâ 2 , that a happy outcome of this crisis which is threatening the existence of Mauritania, since more than 57% of the population lived below the poverty threshold, could only be obtained through âresponsible, dispassionate and constructive dialogue the only means to realise consensual solutions to the major problems which existâ. The document also insisted on the need for the country to have a pluralist Parliament resulting from transparent elections, an independent judiciary, a really free press, the opening of the public media for opposition debates and to give free access to airtime. And in conclusion, the authors of the statement affirmed that âthe UFD/EN, as a political force of major significance, whilst expressing its sincere gratitude to all of Mauritaniaâs development partners for their large contributions to this country, and in expressing the hope to see this assistance increased, invites them to avoid, as much as possible, easy solutions and complacent attitudes which is costing [sic] Mauritania enormously for the past several yearsâ 3 58. Concerning the statement of the 30th October 1999 made by the UFD/EN, the Complainant argues that it had been published at the end of the Partyâs 2 ndOrdinary Congress which had brought together some fifteen African Political Parties. The text, a report of the 3-day meeting of the Party, had been divided in two sections, devoted respectively to the political, economic and social situation of the nation and to the Partyâs internal activities. 6