,/ '~~H ~~, ~': \~ · ,,) i:1m1.n • ACH PR Af. . , on · ncan Cornrn1ss1on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility reasons to dismiss the application for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court in Case Number 31884/2015. 41 64. In addition, it is the opinion of the Complainants that their discrimination as self-representing litigants denied them equal access to the public service and property in their countries in violation of their rights protected in Article 13(2) and (3) respectively.42 The Complainants further allege that they are unable to exercise their right to freely determine their political status and freely choose the policy for their economic and social development as enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter. This, they argue, is due to the difficulty of amending the impugned Constitution which they opine to enable the mistreatment of selfactors by courts. THE RESPONDENT STATES' SUBMISSIONS ON THE MERITS 65. The Respondent State argues that South Africa has one of the most progressive constitutions in the world in which all the rights enshrined in the Charter are protected. They submit that the Constitution apportions powers, duties and obligations to the organs of the State, including the Courts. 66. South Africa submits that the 2nd Complainant was not denied legal representation by the High Court's refusal to allow the 1st Complainant to represent it as opined by the Complainants. It is submitted that Mr. Jacobus Van Heerden, the 1st CoJ]lplainant could not have represented the 2nd Complainant as he was and is not a Legal Practitioner with the right of appearance to represent the 2nd Complainant before the Courts of South Africa. 67. The Respondent State Contends that the Complainants were not denied legal aid in the manner they assert. According to the Respondent State, legal aid is granted in terms of the Legal Aid South Africa Act (Act No. 39 of 2014) under which legal aid may only be provided in criminal matters and not the civil litigation that the Complainants were embroiled in. 68. South Africa contends that the Superior Courts' dismissal of the Complainant's leave to appeal without a hearing or full judgment is a long-standing practice of the judiciary of the Republic. The Respondent State s._,.,i O"Supreme 41 Complainants Observations on Admissibility and Merits (2022) para 47-4 42 Complainants' Observations on Admissibility and Merits (2022) para 49 a 14 I Page '11!}1,?'IIU African(..._\ Union\!, The African Commi 31 Biji