Decision on the preliminary issue of the Commission’s jurisdiction rationae temporis 92. The Respondent State raises objection to the Commission’s exercise of jurisdiction rationae temporis. The Complainants responded that although those violations were carried out before the African Charter came into force for Cameroon, they did not stop even after 18 December 1989. 93. The Commission acknowledges the Respondent State’s argument that its jurisdiction rationae temporis is limited in limine, and as such it cannot address violations retrospective [of] the entry into force of the Charter. The Commission is aware that the Africa Charter entered into force in respect of the Respondent State on 18 December 1989. The Commission has been informed by the Complainants that some of the alleged violations occurred before that date. 94. The Commission stated its position on this principle in communication 97/93 John K. Modise v. Botswana. In that communication the Complainant was arrested by the Botswana authorities in 1978 and deported to apartheid South Africa, in violation of his citizenship rights. The communication was filed in 1993. The Commission held that: “The Republic of Botswana ratified the African Charter on 17 July 1986. Although some of the events described in the communication took place before ratification, their effects continue to the present day. The current circumstances of the Complainant are a result of a present policy decision taken by the Botswana government against him.” 95. The Commission expanded the principle further in its decision on the consolidated communications Nos 54/91 [61-91, 98-93, 164-197, 210-98] Malawi African Association et al v. Mauritania, where it, inter alia, considered an allegation of violations of the right to a fair trial. The Commission held that: “Mauritania ratified the Charter on 14 June 1986, and it came into force on 21 October 1986. The September trials, thus took place prior to the entry into force of the Charter. These trials led to the imprisonment of various persons. The Commission can only consider a violation that took place prior to the entry into force of the Charter if such a violation continues or has effects which themselves constitute violations after the entry into force of the Charter…” 10 96. The Commission has through its jurisprudence established the principle that violations that occurred prior to the entry into force of the Charter, in respect of a State party, shall be deemed to be within the jurisdiction rationae temporis of the Commission, if they continue, after the entry into force of the Charter. The effects of such violations may themselves constitute violations under the Charter. In other words, this principle presupposes the failure by the State party to adopt measures, as required by Article 1 of the Africa Charter to redress the violations and their effects, hence failing to respect, and guarantee the rights. 97. The Commission therefore decides that it has the competence to consider this complaint against the Respondent State, in relation to violations which emanated prior to 18 December 1989, the date the African Charter entered into force for the Republic of Cameroon, if such violations or their residual effects continued after that date. Consideration of the Merits 98. The communication alleges that the Respondent State violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17.1 in respect of individual Southern Cameroonians; and Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.1 and 24 in respect of the peoples of Southern Cameroons; and the general obligation under Article 26 of the African Charter. Decision on the Merits Alleged violation of Article 2 99. The Complainants allege that there have been various cases of discrimination against the people of Southern Cameroon contrary to Article 2 of the African Charter. Article 2 states that: