Alleged violation of Article 26 209. The Complainants alleged violation of Article 26. They submitted that the judiciary in the Respondent State is not independent. They allege that the executive branch influences the judiciary through the appointments, promotions or transfer policy. It is also alleged that the President of the Republic convenes and presides over the Higher Judicial Council. 210. The Respondent State avers that judicial independence is guaranteed by the Constitution. It states that Article 37 of the 1972 Constitution requires every institution and person, including the President to respect it. The State argues further that the Higher Judicial Council which is the appointing and disciplinary authority for magistrates does not necessarily require magistrates to pledge allegiance to the President. It concedes that the President of the Republic chairs the Higher Judicial Council, the Minister for Justice, is the Vice Chairperson, three members of Parliament, three members of the bench, and an independent personality. 211. The Commission states that the doctrine of separation of powers requires the three pillars of the state to exercise powers independently. The executive branch must be seen to be separate from the judiciary, and parliament. Likewise in order to guarantee its independence, the judiciary, must be seen to be independent from the executive and parliament. The admission by the Respondent State that the President of the Republic, and the Minister responsible for Justice are the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Higher Judicial Council respectively is manifest proof that the judiciary is not independent. 212. The composition of the Higher Judicial Council by other members is not likely to provide the necessary “checks and balance” against the Chairperson, who happens to be the President of the Republic. The allegations by the Complainants in this regard are therefore substantiated. The Commission does not hesitate to find the Respondent State in violation of Article 26. 213. The Complainants did not mention Article 1 among the provisions of the African Charter alleged to have been violated by the Respondent State. However, according to its well established jurisprudence, the African Commission holds that a violation of any other provision of the African Charter automatically constitutes a violation of Article as it depicts a failure of the State Party concern to adopt adequate measures to give effect to the provisions of the African Charter. Thus, having found violations of several provisions in the above analysis, the African Commission also finds that the Respondent State violated Article 1. 214. For the above reasons, the African Commission: • • Finds that Articles 12, 13, 17.1, 20, 21, 22, 23.1 and 24 have not been violated. Finds that the Republic of Cameroon has violated Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7.1, 10, 11, 19 and 26 of the Charter. Recommendations 215. The African Commission therefore recommends as follows; 1. That the Respondent State: 1. Abolishes all discriminatory practices against people of Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, including equal usage of the English language in business transactions; 2. Stops the transfer of accused persons from the Anglophone provinces for trial in the Francophone provinces; 3. Ensures that every person facing criminal charges be tried under the language he/she understands. In the alternative, the Respondent State must ensure that interpreters are employed in Courts to avoid jeopardising the rights of accused persons; 4. Locates national projects, equitably throughout the country, including Northwest and Southwest Cameroon, in accordance with economic viability as well as regional balance;