pronouncement on the constitutionality of the provisions of the Botswana Immigration Act or any of the actions of the authorities. Decision of the Commission 243. For the above reasons, the Commission finds that Botswana has violated Articles 1, 2, 7.1.a, 9, 12.4 and 18.1 & 18.2 of the African Charter. 244. The Commission recommends: 1. that the Respondent State provides adequate compensation to the victim for the loss and cost he has incurred as a result of the violations. The compensation should include but not be limited to remuneration and benefits he lost as a result of his expulsion, and legal costs he incurred during litigation in domestic courts and before the African Commission. The manner and mode of payment of compensation shall be made in accordance with the pertinent laws of the Respondent State; and 2. The Respondent State should take steps to ensure that Sections 7(f), 11(6) and 36 of the Botswana Immigration Act and its practices conform to international human rights standards, in particular, the African Charter. th Done in Banjul, The Gambia, at the 47 Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and th th Peoples’ Rights held from 12 – 26 May 2010. Footnotes 1. Articles 41 & 44 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted on 1981. 2. Article 58 of the African Charter. th 3. Constitutive Act of the African Union adopted on 11 July 2000, Art. 33(1) 4. Decision on the Interim Period, Ass/AU/Dec.1 (I), para 2(xi) 5. Part 1 of the African Charter is dedicated to “Rights and duties” and Part 2, to “Measures of Safeguard”. 6. Art 13(1)(j) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union (the Commission’s emphasis). 7. Communication 221/98 - Alfred B. Cudjoe v Ghana (1999) para 14. 8. Communication 48/90 - Amnesty International v Sudan, 50/91 Comité Loosli Bachelard v Sudan, 52/91 Lawyers Committee for Human Rights v Sudan, 89/93 Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v Sudan (1999), para 31. 9. Communication 87/93 - Constitutional Rights Project (In respect of Zamani Lakwot and 6 others) v Nigeria(1995) para 8. 10. Particularly the arguments raised by the Respondent State regarding the fact that the President made the decision in accordance with Article 12.4 of the Charter and that the expulsion order was confirmed by Botswana High Court and Court of Appeal and hence the State has the obligation not to interfere with the independence of the judiciary under Article 26 of the Charter, are arguments that go into the merits of the case. 11. Communication 211/98 Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia (2001) para. 70. 12. Communication 129/94 Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria(1998) paras 12 & 16. 13. Communications 147/97 & 149/96 Jawara v The Gambia para 74; Communication 151/96 Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria, para. 17 14. Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (1993) 226. 15. Communication 97/93 John K Modise v Botswana (2000), para 83. 16. Communication 74/92 Commission nationale des droits de l’Homme et des libertés v Chad (1995), para 21. 17. Communication 212/98 Amnesty International v Zambia (1999), para. 33. 18. This provision reads as “No person affected by any such decision shall have the right to demand any information as to the grounds of such decision nor shall any such information be disclosed in any court”. 19. Concluding Observations on Germany (1997) UN doc. CCPR/C/79Add.73 para. 17 20. [2002]4 ALL ER 289. 21. [2002] 1 ALL ER 122. 22. Communications 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97 International PEN and others (on behalf of Ken SaroWiwa Jr) v Nigeria]] (1998) para. 116. 23. communication 129/94 - Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria (1995) para 12 & 16. 24. Art 27 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 states that “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. This rule is without prejudice to Art 46, Treaty Series, vol 1155, 331. 25. Communication 211/98 - Legal Resource Foundation v Zambia (2001) para. 68.