substantiate the allegations. For the above reasons, the African Commissions finds that there is no violation of Article 17.1 of the Charter. 150. The Commission then examined the alleged violation of Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.1 and 24 of the African Charter. Alleged violation of Article 19 151. The Complainants premised the complaint alleging violation of their collective rights on the events which happened prior to 18 December 1989. The Commission has already expressed itself on the question of its jurisdiction rationae temporis. The Complainants alleged that the Respondent State, “forcefully and unlawfully annexed” Southern Cameroon. They argue that the Respondent State: “……..established its colonial rule there, complete with its structures, and its administrative, military and police personnel, applying a system and operating in a language alien to the Southern Cameroon, … and continues to exercise a colonial sovereignty over Southern Cameroon to this day.” 152. They argue further that: “… the occupation and assumption of a colonial sovereignty over Southern Cameroon by the Respondent State amounts to violation of Articles 19 and 20 of the African Charter…., both of which outlaw domination, and colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. Article 19 places an absolute ban on the domination of one people by another. Article 20 emphatically asserts the right of every people to existence, to self determination, and of resistance to colonialism or oppression by resorting to any internationally recognised means of resistance” 153. These are very serious allegations which go to the root of the statehood and sovereignty of the Republic of Cameroon. The Respondent State responded by arguing that the Commission is: “…incompetent to handle the issue of the process of decolonisation that took place in this State and under the auspices of the United Nations.” 154. Respondent State submits further that the Commission cannot examine or adjudicate on the 1961 UN plebiscite, on events which took place between the October 1961 and 1972, when the Federal and Union Constitutions were adopted, because they predated the entry into force of the Charter. 155. The Commission concedes that it is not competent to adjudicate on the legality of those events, due to limitation imposed on its jurisdiction rationae temporis, for reasons stated hereinabove. The Commission cannot make a finding on allegations made by the Complainants concerning “illegal and forced annexation, or colonial occupation of Southern Cameroon by the Respondent State,” since they fall outside its jurisdiction rationae temporis. 156. The Commission states, however that, if the Complainants can establish that any violation committed before 18 December 1989, continued thereafter, then the Commission shall have competence to examine it. 157. The Complainants alleged cases of economic marginalisation, and denial of basic infrastructure by the Respondent State, as constituting violations of Article 19. They allege that these violations were a consequence of the events of 1961 and 1972, and continued after 18 December 1989. 158. The Respondent State contested the allegation of economic marginalisation. It submitted documents and statistics in support of its provision of basic infrastructure in Southern Cameroon. The statistical information and data show that, for the period 1998 up to 2003/4, the North West and South West provinces, (Southern Cameroon,) were allocated substantially higher budgetary resources, than the Francophone provinces, for the construction and maintenance of roads, and running of education training institutions. The documents show that the situation in the Anglophone regions is not that different from other parts of the country. It argued that the problem concerning inadequate infrastructural development is not peculiar to Southern Cameroon. 159. The Complainants rejected as adulterated the data and statistics provided by the Respondent. The Complainants did not furnish any document to support their allegation. The Commission finds no reason why it should not rely on the data and statistics provided by the Respondent State in its decision. The Commission holds that the Respondent State allocated public resources to the Anglophone provinces without discrimination.