On the principles governing the right to a fair trial 33. The Complainant contends that the Mauritanian Courts are in violation of the provisions of Article 7.1.a of the African Charter which stipulates: âEvery individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognised and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force.â 34. The Complainant alleges that the dissolution of the main Mauritanian opposition party UFD/EN, the seizing of its assets and the conditions in which the measure has been confirmed by the highest court in the land have violated the relevant provisions of the African Charter and other Conventions to which the country is signatory. 35. The Complainant contends that these violations are both procedural and substantial. Procedural, because the basic rules and principles of a fair hearing were not respected during the hearing. Substantial, because the dissolution of the UFD/EN party violated the right of association and freedom of expression of the members and leaders of this political party and violated the principles of democracy outlined in the African Charter. 36. The Complainant alleges that the procedure before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court did not respect the principles relative to the right to a fair hearing in particular that which is relative to two-tier proceedings. The Complainant also alleges that from the investigation of the case up to the public hearing which decided the destiny of the UFD/EN, the principles of inter parties had not been respected and that the final ruling by the Judge did not contain pertinent legal arguments justifying the dissolution of the said party. 37. The Respondent State emphasises that the judicial examples and arguments and all the documentation on the right to a fair hearing raised by the Complainant are only applicable in a penal case. The Respondent State imagines evidently that the accusations levelled against the UFD/EN may well have a penal qualification according to the law governing the activities of political parties, but this is not enough to give this case a penal character since no penal lawsuit had been brought against the leaders of the said Party. 38. The Respondent State indicates that concerning the respect for the principle of two-tier proceedings, which consists of bringing the entire dossier of the merits of a case before a differently composed higher legal authority for examination, it is established that it concerns a broad based rule which can be widely applied, notably in penal cases. This principle forms the basis of proper administration of justice and allows the well-intentioned applicant to obtain the guarantee of a correct application of the law. 39. The fact remains however that, as stipulated by Article 7.1.a of the African Charter, every individual has the right to have his cause heard, which includes: â... The right to appeal to competent national organsâ?â 40. In this particular case, and in conformity with Article 26 of the Decree 91-024 of the 25th July 1991 governing the activities of political parties, the Respondent State underscores the fact that the competent legal authority to examine the legality and validity of a Decree passed by the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania is the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to the procedure in force in this country. However, the Supreme Court is the highest authority in the Mauritanian legal system and in the matter of appeal against decisions taken by the administrative authorities; the existing procedure requires that annulment takes place only as a first and last resort. 41. Finally, it means that the Mauritanian legislator, like other similar legislations [sic], has given exclusive authority to the highest legal body in the country due to the legal and political importance of the matter relative to the dissolution of a political party. It is before this high authority that the entire Mauritanian legislative system is built and it is here that the uniform rules for applying the law in this country, in all fields, are established. 42. Concerning the respect for the principle of judgement after due hearing, the Respondent State maintains that the Complainant never mentioned in his written submissions, any opposition to or complaint against the holding of audiences, or of the quality of the representation and the defense of the political party which was dissolved before the Mauritanian legal authorities. 43. After having studied the comments made by the Complainant and the Respondent State, it is well established that the representatives of the UFD/Ere nouvelle received, in good time, all the notifications of the actions and documents relating to this litigation, and had had access to the entire dossier of the case to study all the points and make the relevant criticisms both in writing and by oral advocacy before the competent legal authority. 4