specifically refer to the need to respect the provisions of national legislation in the implementation and enjoyment of such rights. In this particular case, the relevant provisions of Mauritanian laws that had been applied are Article 11 × Article 11: Parties and political groups shall work together for the formation of the expression of the political will. They shall be formed and shall engage in their activities freely, provided that they respect democratic principles and that, through their objectives or by their actions, they not undermine the national sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the unity of the Nation and of the Republic. The law shall determine the conditions for the creation, the functioning and the dissolution of political parties. and Article 18 × Article 18: Every citizen has the duty of protecting and safe-guarding the independence of the country, its sovereignty and the integrity of its territory. Treason, espionage, and defecting to the enemy as well as all infractions committed with prejudice to the security of the State shall be punished with all the rigor of the law. of the Constitution and Articles 4, 25 and 26 of the Decree 91-024 of the 25th July 1991 relative to political parties. 77. However these regulations should be compatible with the obligations of States as outlined in the African Charter6 . In the specific case of the freedom of expression that the African Commission considers as âa fundamental human right, essential for the development of the individual, for his political awareness and his participation in public affairsâ 7 . A recent decision8 clearly delineated that the right of States to restrain, through national legislation, the expression of opinions did not mean that national legislation could push aside entirely the right to expression and the right to express oneâs opinion. This, in the Commissionâs view, would make the protection of this right inoperable. To allow national legislation to take precedence over the Charter would result in wiping out the importance and impact of the rights and freedoms provided for under the Charter. International obligations should always have precedence over national legislation, and any restriction of the rights guaranteed by the Charter should be in conformity with the provisions of the latter. 78. For the African Commission the only legitimate reasons for restricting the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter are those stipulated in Article 27(2), namely that the rights âshall be exercised with due regard to the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interestâ 9 And even in this case the restrictions should âbe based on legitimate public interest and the inconvenience caused by these restrictions should be strictly proportional and absolutely necessary for the benefits to be realisedâ 10 79. Furthermore, the African Commission requires that for a restriction imposed by the legislators to conform to the provisions of the African Charter, it should be done âwith respect for the rights of others, collective security and common interestâ 11 that it should be based âon a legitimate public interest 12 . And â?and should be strictly proportional and absolutely necessaryâ to the sought after objective more over, the law in question should be in conformity with the obligations to which the State has 14 subscribed in ratifying the African Charter13 and should not ârender the right itself an illusionâ 80. It is worthy of note that the freedom of expression and the right to association are closely linked because the protection of opinions and the right to express them freely constitute one of the objectives of the right of association. And this amalgamation of the two norms is even clearer in the case of political parties, considering their essential role for the maintenance of pluralism and the proper functioning of democracy. A political group should therefore not be hounded for the simple reason of wanting to hold public debates, with due respect for democratic rules, on a certain number of issues of national interest. 81. In this particular case it is obvious that the dissolution of the UFD/EN had the main objective of preventing the party leaders from continuing to be responsible for actions for declarations or for the adoption of positions which, according to the Mauritanian government, caused public disorder and seriously threatened the credit, social cohesion and public order in the country. 82. Nonetheless, and without wanting to pre-empt the judgement of the Mauritanian authorities, it appears to the African Commission that the said authorities had a whole gamut of sanctions which they could have used without having to resort to the dissolution of this party. It would appear in fact that that if the 10