naturally subsumed within Article 13 (1) of the African Charter as the most valid method by which citizens are able to elect their representatives. The Commission has in several decisions, affirmed this logical conclusion. 16 As the African Charter does not distinguish between the types of elections covered by Article 13 (1), the right to participate in government must therefore be interpreted in the widest possible sense so as to include all forms of elections, whether local or national, parliamentarian or presidential, referenda or any other modes by which individuals participate in elections.17 71. In spite of its fundamental importance to democracy, the African Charter nevertheless recognizes the prerogative of States to legitimately restrict the right to participate in government. This prerogative does not however give States carte blanche, and as such, the Commission retains a duty to ensure the compliance of such restrictions with the African Charter. 72. In Amnesty International v Zambia, the Commission stated that “claw-back clauses must not be interpreted against the principles of the African Charter [and that] recourse to these should not be used as a means of giving credence to violations of the express provisions of the African Charter”.18 The Commission also stated in Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (Constitutional Rights Project case) that “to permit national law to take precedence over international law would defeat the purpose of codifying certain rights in international law and indeed, the whole essence of treaty making’’.19 This position is underpinned by the customary international law principle expressed in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which precludes States from invoking the provisions of their domestic law to violate their treaty obligations. 20 73. These treaty obligations and standards are expressed in the jurisprudence of the Commission and that of its international and regional counterparts. In Purohit and Moore v Gambia, the Commission expressly adopted the interpretation of 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. 16 See Communication 97/93 – John K. Modise v Botswana (2000) ACHPR; Communication 211/98 - Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia (2001) ACHPR; Communication 241/01 - Purohit and Moore v the Gambia (2003) ACHPR 17 Human Rights Committee on Civil and Political Rights, General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25) (CCPR General Comment) paras 6, 10 18 Communication 212/98 – Amnesty International v Zambia (1999) ACHPR, para 50 19 Communication 140/94-141/94-145/95 – Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v Nigeria (1999) ACHPR, para 40 20 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (VCLT) Article 27 15