iti~·,.) ACH PR ~~- nn:n:o ~ African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Hurnan Rights our Collective Responsibility applied to their circumstances regardless of their assumed vulnerability as selfactors. The Commission notes that in all these decisions, the Courts interpreted and applied existing legislation in _accordance with the historical judicial precedent cited in all the cases. This means that and as clearly demonstrated by the Respondent State, any other person claiming legal aid in a civil case would have been d enied; any other juristic person approaching the courts without a lawyer would have been dismissed; any other person who isn't a registered legal practitioner would have been barred from representing another person; any other non-party funder would have been joined to the bear the costs of litigation in which they have a manifest financial interest; and any other prospective appellant whose appeal had no prospects of success would have been summarily dismissed with no need for a comprehensive judgment. In any event, the Complainants fall far off from satisfying their legal burden to demonstrate that the way in which the Courts of the Respondent State applied the law was only specific to them, and in a manner that objectively and reasonable unjustifiable. 92. The Commission is of the view that to the extent that they complied with existing law as applied to everyone else, the Complainants enjoyed access to the courts, were held to the same legal standards and procedures with other litigants similarly situated with them and were not victims of arbitrary application law by judicial officers. Accordingly, the Commission does not find a violation of Article 3 of the Charter. 93. The Commission now turns to.consider allegations of the violation of Article 19. It must be recalled that Article 19 of the Charter is a Peoples' right and not an individual right. In the case of Kelvin Gunme and others v The Republic of Cameroon, it was held that before the Commission can find a violation of peoples, it must satisfy itself that the Complainants are themselves peoples. 57 No evidence has been put before the Commission to suggest that the Complainants, being one individual from South Africa (the 1st Complainant) and one juristic person (the 2nd Complainant) are a people within the meaning conferred by the Charter. Accordingly, in line with its findings in the case of Legal Resources foundation v Zambia," The Commission believes that recourse to Article 19 of the Charter was mistaken. The section dealing with peoples cannot -,-,!l~ ..==uM:::::4::::::11t,..,_ 4 in this instance." 58 ,""'" ,t-c.REl 1v,,;"'o~ .:l () V 57 Communication 323/06, Merits decision, para 166-179 58 Communications 211/98, para 73 23 I Page Afunr,·1 Un:on\lt The African Commission on Human and Peoples' 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North Distric, West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Fm~il· ;u 1- h ;:::1ni1lllm~frir.~-11ninn nrn o'°(' ~ II•.