the protection afforded by Article 7 is not limited to the protection of the rights of arrested and detained persons but encompasses the right of every individual to access the relevant judicial bodies competent to have their causes heard and be granted adequate relief. The Commission added that ‘If there appears to be any possibility of an alleged victim succeeding at a hearing, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to have their matter heard’. 171. To borrow from the Inter-American human rights system, the American Declaration of the Rights 34 and Duties of Man provides in Article XVIII that every person has the right to "resort to the courts to ensure respect for [their] legal rights," and to have access to a "simple, brief procedure whereby the courts" will protect him or her "from acts of the authority that … violate any fundamental constitutional rights….". 172. In the present communication, the victim was not prevented from accessing the Courts. As a matter of fact both the High Court and the Court of Appeal of the Respondent State heard his case but ruled that the Botswana Immigration Act, in particular, Sections 11(6) and 36(a) thereto, does not allow the Courts to review the decision of the President. In other words, the Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain the matter. 173. This Commission is of the view that an ouster clause, be it through a military decree or an Act of Parliament has the same effect of preventing national judicial organs from entertaining alleged human rights violations, thus denying victims of human rights abuses the right to have their causes heard. 35 In Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria , the Commission held that ‘while punishments decreed as the culmination of a carefully conducted criminal procedure do not necessarily constitute violations of [the Charter], to foreclose any avenue of appeal to competent national organs … clearly violates Article 7.1.a of the African Charter, and increases the risk that even severe violations may go unredressed’. 174. The Respondent State argues that the limitations under Sections 11(6) and 36 of the Immigration Act are necessary in the public interest, and public interest, according to the State, includes ensuring peace, stability and the well-being of the Botswana people and the country’s national security. The State concludes that it would therefore not be in the public interest to disclose or debate before a court of law the information and grounds upon which the President formed his decision. Accordingly, the reasons for the President’s decision should neither be open to public disclosure nor be the subject of scrutiny by the courts. 175. Can a victim’s right to have his cause heard be limited or derogated upon for ‘public interest’?. The answer to this is NO. The right to a fair trial, which includes the right to have one’s cause heard, to be informed of reasons and to seek appropriate remedy, is an absolute right that cannot be derogated 36 from in any circumstance This position is reiterated by the Commission in its ‘Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa’ where it has made it very clear that no circumstances whatsoever, not even cases of public emergency, justify any derogations from 37 the right to fair trial . 38 176. In Amnesty International v Zambia where the Complainant, among others, was deported from Zambia because he was considered by the authorities to be ‘a danger to peace and good order …’ and was denied access to courts, the Commission held that the Zambian Government by denying the Complainant of the right to appeal his deportation order has deprived him of a right to fair hearing which contravenes Article 7.1.a of the Charter and international human rights laws. 177. Where a government has reason to believe that a citizen or a non-national legally within its territory poses a threat to national security, it should bring evidence before the courts against the person. Not doing so may lead to the possibility of abuse where individuals can be detained or expelled on mere suspicion of being security threats. 39 178. In Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria , the Commission stated that ‘while [it] is sympathetic to genuine attempts to maintain public peace, it must note that all too often extreme measures to curtail rights simply create greater unrest. It is dangerous for the protection of human rights for the executive branch of the government to operate without such checks as the judiciary can usually perform’. This is especially true with respect to the present communication where there is a law which gives too broad power to the executive and prohibits courts from checking the use of such broad powers. The Commission in its decisions has time and again stressed on the need of judicial oversight