131. The Commission therefore concludes that the Respondent State violated Articles 7.1.b, 7.1.c and 7.1.d of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 9 132. The communication alleges violation of Article 9 of the Charter. The Complainants did not make any submissions concerning Article 9. The Commission has therefore not made any finding regarding Article 9. Alleged violation of Article 10 133. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State violated Article 10 of the African Charter. The parties did not make any submission on Article 10 of the Charter. The Commission finds no violation of Article 10. Alleged violation of Article 11 134. The Commission examined whether Article 11 was violated. The Commission deems that there is enough information on the record, based on the both parties to enable the Commission to make its determination. 135. Article 11 states that: “Every individual shall have the right to assemble freely with others. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to necessary restrictions provided for by law in particular those enacted in the interest of national security, the safety of others, health, ethics and rights and freedoms of others.” 136. The facts before the Commission depict cases of suppression of demonstrations, including the use of force against, the arrest and detention of people taking part in such demonstrations. The Commission has held previously that; “…the Charter must be interpreted holistically and all clauses 17 must reinforce each other.” 137. The Complainant states that several victims were arrested and held in detention for long periods, for exercising their right to freedom of assembly. Some of the detained persons were acquitted. There were others who died at the hands of security forces or in detention, after being accused of participation in “unlawful political rallies.” The victims who died, or had been detained suffered while exercising their exercise of the right to freedom of assembly. 138. The Commission does not condone unlawful acts by individuals or organisations to advance political objectives, because such actions or their consequences are likely to violate the African Charter. It encourages individuals and organisations, when exercising their right to freedom of assembly, to operate within the national legal framework. This requirement does not absolve States Parties from their duty to guarantee the rights to freedom of assembly, while maintaining law and order. The Respondent States admits that it detained demonstrators, applied excessive force to enforce law and order, and in some cases lives were lost. The Commission concludes therefore that Article 11 of the African Charter was violated. Alleged violation of Article 12 139. The Complainants alleged that Article 12 was violated by the Respondent State. They did not substantiate any infringement by the Respondent State of the right to freedom of movement. The Commission finds no violation of Article 12. Alleged violation of Article 13 140. The Complainants alleged violation of Article 13. They stated that the people of Southern Cameroon were not adequately represented in the institutions of the Republic of Cameroon except for “token” appointments. They allege further that the Respondent State manipulated demographic data to deny Southern Cameroonians equal representation in government.