into account the popular will of the entire population, exercised through democratic means, such as by way of a referendum, or other means of creating national consensus. Such forms of governance cannot be imposed on a State Party or a people by the African Commission. 200. The African Commission finds that the people of Southern Cameroon cannot engage in secession, except within the terms expressed hereinabove, since secession is not recognised as a variant of the right to self-determination within the context of the African Charter. 201. The Commission, however, finds also that the Respondent State violated various rights protected by the African Charter in respect of Southern Cameroonians. It urges the Respondent State to address the grievances expressed by the Southern Cameroonians through its democratic institutions. The 1993 Buea and 1994 Bamenda Anglophone conferences raised constitutional and human rights issues which have been a matter of concern to a sizable section of the Southern Cameroonian population for quite a long time. The demand for these rights has lead to civil unrest, demonstrations, arrests, detention, and the deaths of various people, which culminated in the demand for secession. 202. The Respondent State implicitly acknowledges the existence of this unwelcome state of affairs. It is evident that the 1995 Constitution did not address the Southern Cameroonians’ demands, particularly since it did not accommodate the concerns expressed through the 1993 Buea Declaration and 1994 Bamenda Proclamation. 203. The Commission believes that the Southern Cameroonians’ grievances cannot be resolved through secession but through a comprehensive national dialogue. Alleged violation of Article 21 204. The Complainants allege violation of Article 21. They did not bring any evidence to support their allegation. In the absence of any such evidence, the Commission finds no violation against the Respondent State. Alleged violation of Article 22 205. The Complainants alleged cases of economic marginalisation and lack of economic infrastructure. The lack of such resources, if proven would constitute violation of the right to development under Article 22. 206. The Commission is cognisant of the fact that the realisation of the right to development is a big challenge to the Respondent State, as it is for State Parties to the Charter, which are developing countries with scarce resources. The Respondent State gave explanations and statistical data showing its allocation of development resources in various socio-economic sectors. The Respondent State is under obligation to invest its resources in the best way possible to attain the progressive realisation of the right to development, and other economic, social and cultural rights. This may not reach all parts of its territory to the satisfaction of all individuals and peoples, hence generating grievances. This alone cannot be a basis for the finding of a violation. The Commission does not a find a violation of Article 22. Alleged violation of Article 23(1) 207. The Complainants did not substantiate their allegations on the violation under Article 23.1. The Commission therefore finds that there was no violation of Article 23.1 of the Charter. Alleged violation of Article 24 208. No evidence was brought to support the allegation that Article 24 has been violated. Consequently, the Commission finds no violation.