in the fact that it is a communication adopted by state default? We will never know. 9. How to understand, in paragraph 145 for example, the ease with which the Commission inferred from a prima facie evidence of a difference in treatment between parties in a similar situation, eldest sons heirs to the throne against eldest daughters n9t heirs of the latter (although this situation can customarily be rectified if they married eldest sons of other thrones); forgetting that even if this issue were settled, it would create other anomalies drawn from the situation of other ordinary citizens (girls or boys) within the same tribe who are totally excluded from this customary succession. The question here is, what will the Commission say tomorrow whenJhe other members of the tribe who do not belong to the Chief's family also ask for -a finding of discrimination in access to the throne? For me, customs, such as religion, are sacred and insusceptible to control by trealy bodies. The Commission haq to follow, for this matter precisely, the reasoning, in my view rational and prudent, of the National Judge, that of the Constitutiona~ Coprt of Lesothq (paragraph 43) reproduced in paragraph 109 ofJhis _corrimunication. I still wonder if the right decision would not have been to confirm this excellent reasoning of the National Judge on this major i1?sue. Justas the Commission did indeed have the possibility to state that differential treatm~nt based on customary or religious values does not fall within the scope of its review of conventionality and is beyond its scrutiny. The founding fathers of the Charter had mandated the Commission to monitor human and peoples' rights by aligning them with our values and cultural: traditions. 10. Lastly, the Comtnission would have had much to gain by taking its time on this issue (as ·it always doe~), c;ielving deeper into the subject, and calling on the good offices of its partners via the amicus curiae procedure, to enlighten its sovereign religion. Here too, I had the feeling that the desire to quickly decide, the push of ultra-progressive feminist ideas, a very noble and respectable fight elsewhere, were right in a rational and prudent approach to postpone again the adoption of the case for a final attempt to find good arguments. I then ask myself the following question: will it be a communication of principle?