211/98 : Legal Resources Foundation / Zambia
Summary of Facts
1. The Complainant, an NGO that has Observer Status with the African Commission and is based in
Zambia, is bringing this complaint against a State Party to the Charter, Zambia.
2. The Complainant alleges that the Zambian government has enacted into law, a Constitution that is
discriminatory, divisive and violates the human rights of 35 percent of the entire population. The
Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1996, it is alleged, has not only violated the rights of its citizens, but
has also taken away the accrued rights of other citizens, including the first President, Dr Kenneth
Kaunda.
3. The Complainant alleges that the said Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act of 1996
provides inter alia that anyone who wants to contest the office of the president has to prove that both
parents are/were Zambians by birth or descent.
4. Article 35 of the said Constitution Amendment Act further provides that nobody who has served
two five-year terms as President shall be eligible for re-election to that office.
5. The Complainant alleges that the amended constitutional provisions contravene international
human rights instruments in general and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in
particular.
6. The Complainant had taken the case to the Supreme Court of Zambia between May and August
1996 seeking:
•
•
•
A declaration that Articles 34 and 35 of the amended Constitution are discriminatory.
A declaration that Parliament lacks the power to adopt a new Constitution; and
An injunction restraining the President from assenting to the Constitution.
7. The Complainant alleges that while the case was pending in court, the ruling party dominated
parliament and went ahead to adopt and enact the controversial constitution which the President
assented to one week later.
8. The Complainant's case was therefore thrown out of court.
9. The Supreme Court of Zambia is the highest court of appellate jurisdiction in the land, thus all local
remedies have been exhausted.
Complaint
10. The Complainant alleges that the following provisions of the African Charter have been violated:
•
•
•
•
Article 2 - which prohibits discrimination of any kind including place of birth, social origin and
other status;
Article 3 - which provides for the equality of all individuals before the law;
Article 13 - which guarantees every citizen the right to participate freely in the government of
his or her country;
Article 19 - which provides for the equality of all peoples, irrespective of their place of origin
etc.
Procedure
th
11. The communication is dated 12 February 1998.
th
12. On the 10 March 1998, the Secretariat sent a letter acknowledging receipt of the complaint.
rd
th
th
13. At its 23 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 20 to 29 April 1998, the
Commission decided to be seized of this case and requested further information in order to decide on
the question of admissibility at the next session.
th
14. On 25 June 1998, the Secretariat sent letters to the parties notifying them of the Commission’s
decision.
th
nd
15. At its 24 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 22 to 31st October 1998, the
th
Commission postponed consideration of admissibility of the communication to the 25 Ordinary
Session and instructed the Secretariat to request more information from the parties.
th
16. Accordingly, on 26 November 1998, the Secretariat informed the parties of the decision.
th
17. At its 25 Ordinary Session held in Bujumbura, Burundi, the Commission declared the
th
communication admissible and postponed its consideration on the merits to the 26 Ordinary Session.
th
18. On 13 May 1999, the Secretariat of the Commission notified the parties of this decision.
th
19. At the 26 Ordinary Session of the Commission held in Kigali, Rwanda, the Commission
considered the communication and invited the parties to present oral arguments o the merits of the
case.
th
20. Letters conveying this decision were dispatched to the parties by the Secretariat on 18 January
2000.
th
21. Reminders to this effect were sent on 14 March 2000, with a copy to the Embassy of the
Republic of Zambia in Addis Ababa.
th
22. On 30 March 2000, the State Party responded to the above request.
23. On 31st March 2000, the Secretariat of the Commission acknowledged receipt of the document,
but reminded it of the necessity of it sending the relevant sections of the Constitution together with the
Supreme Court's decision on the case, as soon as possible. A copy of this Note was forwarded to its
Embassy in Addis Ababa. A copy of the State Party's submission was also forwarded to the
Complainant in Lusaka.
th
24. On 7 April 2000, the State Party sent a fax to the Secretariat requesting for a copy of the report
th
of the 26 Ordinary Session.
25. In view of the requirements of Article 59 of the Charter, the Secretariat instead sent to the State
Party a copy of the Final Communiqué of the said session. It also intimated it of the decision of the
Commission during that session.
th
26. On 30 April 2000, the respondent state submitted additional arguments to its initial response of
th
30 March 2000.
nd
27. On 2 May 2000, while at the session, the Secretariat received a letter from the Complainant
expressing its desire to continue with the case.
th
28. At the 27 Ordinary Session held in Algeria, the Commission heard representatives of the
Respondent State. It decided that parties should address it on specific issues, particularly on whether
or not the provisions of the amended Constitution were in conformity with the Republic of Zambia's
obligations under the Charter. In addition, the Secretariat was requested to seek an independent legal
expert opinion on the issues raised for determination.
th
29. The parties were informed of the above decision on 7 July 2000.
30. On 31st August 2000, the Secretariat of the Commission wrote reminders to the parties and
emphasised the necessity for them to furnish it with their submissions as soon as possible for use in
th
the preparation of the draft decision for the 28 Session.
th
31. On 26 September 2000, the Secretariat received a response from the respondent state on the
th
issues raised by the Commission during the 27 Ordinary Session.
nd
32. On 2 October 2000, the Secretariat of the Commission acknowledged receipt of the submission
and forwarded a copy of the same to the Complainant for its comments
th
33. At the 28 Ordinary Session in Cotonou, Benin, the communication was considered and further
th
consideration of the merits was deferred until the 29 Ordinary Session.
th
34. The parties were informed of this decision on 14 November 2000.
35. A Note Verbale was sent to the Government of Zambia requesting a copy of the Commission of
th
Inquiry report on the 5 April 2001.
The State Party's Response
36. The matter concerns the Republican Constitution of Zambia and is therefore an open matter for
discussion. The background to the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act of 1996 is attributable to
the desire of the Zambian people to save and preserve the Office of the President for Zambians with
traceable descent.
37. This position was arrived at in the Report of the Mwanakatwe Commission of Inquiry. The
Commission of Enquiry had been mandated to gather views on the content of the Republican
Constitution. The amendment to the Constitution was therefore not targeted at any person in the
country.
38. Zambia welcomes views expressed on its Republican Constitution as a way of building a strong
democracy. It is open to expert opinions on the issue, and will continue to listen to views expressed on
it.
39. Zambia views the complaint filed by the Legal Resources Foundation as an opinion on the
Constitution. The variance of opinion of the Complainant from that of the majority therefore is in
accordance with the democratic principle of freedom of opinion. Despite this difference, democracy
entails the rule of the majority. Hence the amendment to the Republican Constitution, which
incorporates the views expressed in the Mwanakatwe Commission of Inquiry Report for an indigenous
Zambian to hold Office of President.
40. Zambia is prepared to co-operate with the Commission and to elaborate further on the issues, if
necessary.
Additional Arguments from the Respondent State
41. The government avers that although the communication is vague as to the details of the judicial
process that was exhausted, Zambia would however assume that the Supreme Court had finally
settled the issues raised by the Complainant, in the case of Zambia Democratic Congress and the
Attorney General SCZ Appeal No. 135/96, SCZ Judgement No. 37/99.
42. The Zambian Parliament has the power to adopt an alteration to the Constitution and the
President may assent to a Constitution that has been altered. However, if Parliament had amended
the entire Constitution, there would have been a mandatory need for a national referendum in respect
of Article 79 and Part III of the Constitution, which contains the Bill of Rights.
43. The government contends that the powers, jurisdiction and competence of Parliament to alter the
Constitution of Zambia are extensive provided that Parliament adheres to the provisions of Article 79
of the Constitution. The constitutional history of Zambia has shown that the alteration of the
Constitution has depended on who controls the majority in Parliament. The ruling Party dominated
Parliament could therefore adopt the altered Constitution.
44. All individuals in Zambia are equal before the law and everyone enjoys the protection of his/her
human rights and fundamental freedoms as provided for by the law.
45. Zambia abhors any type of discrimination. Article 23(1) of the Republican Constitution provides
that:
Subject to clauses (4), (5) and (7) a law shall not make any provision that is discriminatory either of
itself or in its effect.
This Article, however, needs to be read and understood with the provision of Article 23(5), which
states:
Nothing contained in any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of clause (1) to
the extent that it is shown that it makes reasonable provision with respect to qualifications for service
as a public officer.
46. The government points out that it is in this context that Zambian people were of the view that it
was reasonable for the Office of the President to be subject to other qualifications i.e. an indigenous
Zambian candidate of traceable descent. Therefore there was no contravention of Article 2 of the
Charter.
47. To ensure Zambia' s policy of non-discrimination, Article 11 of the Constitution provides that:
It is recognised and declared that every person in Zambia has been and shall continue to be entitled to
the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, the right, whatever his race, place
of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, sex or marital status, but subject to limitations…
The limitations being reasonable within the law, the government therefore avers further that there has
been no violation ofArticle 2 of the Charter as the limitations provided for by Article 34 of the
Republican Constitution are within the law. Zambia also submits that there is no violation of Article
13 of the Charter, which guarantees every citizen the right to participate in government. If anything,
there is a proviso that such should be "in accordance with the provisions of the law."
48. It underscores the fact that 35 and 35 of the Constitution are within Zambia's laws and therefore
there is no violation ofArticle 13 of the Charter.
49. It stated that Zambia considers the inclusion of a violation of Article 19 of the Charter by the
Complainant as not being within the purview of the present communication. It is of the opinion
that Article 19 of the Charter relates to the principle of"self-determination" by the mere mention of the
term "peoples". This position notwithstanding, the peoples of Zambia are equal. It urges the
Commission not to entertain this ground, as it is inappropriate to the issues raised in the
communication.
50. It argues that the discrimination alleged in Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution is not unlawful
and it reflects the popular desire of the majority of the Zambian people to save and preserve
the "Office of the President" for Zambians. The Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, 1996,
therefore, seeks to give effect to the will of the people.
The Law
Admissibility
51. Having considered that the communication satisfied the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter,
the communication was declared admissible.
Merits
52. The allegation before the Commission is that Respondent State has violated Articles
2, 3 and 19 of the Charter in that the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act of 1996 is
discriminatory. Article 34 provides that anyone who wishes to contest the office of President of Zambia
had to prove that both parents were Zambian citizens by birth or descent. The effect of this
amendment was to prohibit a Zambian citizen, former President Dr Kenneth David Kaunda from
contesting the elections having been duly nominated by a legitimate political party. It is alleged that the
effect of the amendment was to disenfranchise some 35% of the electorate of Zambia from standing
as presidential candidates in any future elections for the highest office in the land.
53. The enactment of the amendment to the Constitution is not in dispute. Neither is it denied that Dr
Kenneth Kaunda was thus denied the right to contest the elections for the Office of President. The
Respondent State, however, denies that some 35% of Zambian citizens would be constitutionally
denied the right to stand as President and alleges that in any event such facts have no relevance to
the matter at hand. It nevertheless argues that the said amendment was constitutional, justifiable and
not in violation of the Charter.
54. In the matter of Zambia Democratic Congress v The Attorney General (SCZ Appeal No:
135/1996), the Zambia Supreme Court was petitioned to declare the then proposed amendments to
the Constitution unconstitutional, in that the amendments contained in Articles 34(3)(b) and 35(2) of
the Constitution (Amendment) Act bar persons qualified to stand for election as President of the
Republic under the 1991 Constitution. The amendments also deny people the right to participate fully
without hindrance in the affairs of government and shaping the destiny of the country and undermine
democracy and free and fair elections, which are the basic features of the Constitution of 1991.
55. It is alleged that the matter was rushed through parliament by the ruling party and enacted into
law while the legal and constitutional principles were before the courts for adjudication. In the event,
the court dismissed the appeal for the reason that the petition was “attacking an Act of Parliament on
the ground that it violated Part III of the Constitution relating to Fundamental Rights. We are satisfied
that the application was commenced by a wrong procedure and that in our jurisdiction the application
was untenable”(per Sakala JS at p.292).
56. The following provisions of the African Charter have relevance:
Article 1:
The Member States of the Organisation of African Unity, parties to the present Charter shall recognise
the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or
other measures to give effect to them.
Article 2:
Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and
guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortune, birth or other
status.
Article 3:
1.
2.
Every individual shall be equal before the law.
Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.
Article 13:
1.
Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either
directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law.
2.
Every citizen shall have the right of equal access to the public service of his country.
3.
Every individual shall have the right of access to public property and services in strict equality
of all persons before the law.
57. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights is a creature of the Charter (Article 30).
It was established “to promote human and peoples’ rights and ensure their protection in Africa.” The
functions of the Commission are spelt out inArticle 45 of the Charter. The Commission, inter alia, is
mandated to:
•
•
•
•
Give its views or make recommendations to governments;
Formulate and lay down principles and rules aimed at solving legal problems relating to human
and peoples’ rights and fundamental freedoms upon which African governments may base their
legislation;
Ensure the protection of human and peoples’ rights under the conditions laid down by the
present Charter;
Interpret all the provisions of the present Charter at the request of a State Party…
58. In the task of interpretation and application of the Charter, the Commission is enjoined by Articles
60 and 61 to “draw inspiration from international law on human and peoples’ rights” as reflected in the
instruments of the OAU and the UN as well as other international standard setting principles (Article
60). The Commission is also required to take into consideration other international conventions and
African practices consistent with international norms etc.
59. Although international agreements are not self-executing in Zambia, the government of Zambia
does not seek to avoid its international responsibilities in terms of the treaties to which it is party
( vide Communication 212/98 Amnesty International/Zambia). This is just as well because international
treaty law prohibits states from relying on their national law as justification for their non-compliance
1
with international obligations (Article 27 , Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) Likewise an
international treaty body like the Commission has no jurisdiction in interpreting and applying domestic
law. Instead a body like the Commission may examine a state’s compliance with the treaty in this case
the African Charter. In other words the point of the exercise is to interpret and apply the African
Charter rather than to test the validity of domestic law for its own sake. ( (Vide cases of the Inter
American Commission against UruguayNos 10.029, 10.036, 10.145, 10.10.372, 10.373, 10.374, and
2
10.375 in Report 29/92, October 2, 1992). .
60. What this does mean, however, is that international treaties which are not part of domestic law
and which may not be directly enforceable in the national courts, nonetheless impose obligations on
State Parties. It is noticeable that the application of the Charter was not part of the argument before
the national courts.
61. Conscious of the ramifications of any decision on this matter, the Commission had invited the
parties to address the question of the extent of the jurisdiction of the Commission when it comes to
domestic law, including, as is the case in this instance, the Constitution. Counsel for the respondent
state argued that the Commission had no locus standi to adjudicate on the validity of domestic law.
That position is correct. What must be asserted, however, is that the Commission has the duty to “give
its views or make recommendations to Governments…/ to formulate and lay down principles and rules
aimed at solving legal problems relating to human and peoples’ rights and fundamental freedoms
upon which African Governments may base their legislation / and interpret all the provisions of the
present Charter…” (Article 45).
62. In addition, the Commission is mindful of the positive obligations incumbent on State Parties to
the Charter in terms ofArticle 1 not only to “recognise” the rights under the Charter but to go on
to “undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them” The obligation is
peremptory, States “shall undertake” Indeed, it is only if the states take their obligations seriously that
the rights of citizens can be protected. In addition, it is only to the extent that the Commission is
prepared to interpret and apply the Charter that governments would appreciate the extent of its
obligations and citizens understand the scope of the rights they have under the Charter.
63. Article 2 of the Charter abjures (sic) discrimination on the basis of any of the grounds set out,
among them “language… national or social origin,… birth or other status…”. The right to equality is
very important. It means that citizens should expect to be treated fairly and justly within the legal
system and be assured of equal treatment before the law and equal enjoyment of the rights available
to all other citizens. The right to equality is important for a second reason. Equality or the lack of it
3
affects the capacity of one to enjoy many other rights . For example, one who bears the burden of
disadvantage because of one’s place of birth or social origin suffers indignity as a human being and as
an equal and proud citizen. He may vote for others but has limitations when it comes to standing for
office. In other words the country may be deprived of the leadership and resourcefulness such a
person may bring to national life. Finally, the Commission should take note of the fact that in a growing
number of African States, these forms of discrimination have caused violence and social and
economic instability, which has benefited no one. It has cast doubt on the legitimacy of national
elections and the democratic credentials of states.
64. All parties are agreed that any measure which seeks to exclude a section of the citizenry from
participating in the democratic processes, as the amendment in question has managed to do, is
discriminatory and falls foul of the Charter. Article 11 of the Constitution of Zambia provides that there
shall be no discrimination on the grounds of “race, place of origin, political opinions, colour, creed, sex
or marital status…” The African Charter has “national or social origin…” which could be encompassed
within the expression [quote]“place of origin” in the Zambian Constitution. Article 23(1) of the Zambian
Constitution says that parliament shall not make any law that “is discriminatory of itself or in its
effect…”
65. The Respondent State seeks however to rely on some exceptions as justification in Zambian law
for the exception. The state has held that the right to equality has limitations that are justifiable, and
that the justifications are based on Zambian law and the Charter.
66. Article 11 of the Zambian Constitution states clearly that the right to non-discrimination is “subject
to limitations…”Among the limitations reference is made to Article 23(5) which provides:
… nothing contained in any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of clause (1) to
the extent that it is shown that it makes reasonable provision with respect to qualifications for service
as a public officer… It is argued that following a consultative process, the Zambian people were of the
view that the Office of President be subject to the additional qualification that the President be “an
indigenous Zambian candidate of traceable descent.”
67. There has been some persistent confusion in arguments before us
between “limitations” and “justification”. Limitations refer to what may be referred to as the statute of
limitations, which gives a lower threshold of enjoyment of the right. Such limitations are allowed by law
or provided for in the Constitution itself. In the African Charter these would typically be referred to as
the ‘claw-back’ clauses. “Justification” however applies in those cases where justification is sought
setting perimeters on the enjoyment of a right. In other words, there has to be a two-stage process.
First, the recognition of the right and the fact that such a right has been violated. Second, that such a
violation is justifiable in law. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993) has affirmed
that “all human rights are universal, interrelated, interdependent…” and as such they must be
interpreted and applied as mutually reinforcing. It is interesting to note, for example, that Article 2 does
not have a claw-back’ clause while Article 13 limits the right to “every citizen” but goes on to state
that “in accordance with the law.”
68. In the matter before us therefore the Government of Zambia concedes that the measures were
discriminatory but then goes on to argue (1) a limitation of the right, and (2) justification of the violation.
It is argued that the measure was within the law and Constitution of Zambia. It was stated before the
Commission that Zambia has a constitutional system of parliamentary sovereignty hence even the
Supreme Court could not “attack” an Act of Parliament (as Sakala JS put it). The task of the
Commission, however, is not to seek to do that which even the Zambian courts could not do. The
responsibility of the Commission is to examine the compatibility of domestic law and practice with the
Charter. Consistent with decisions in the European and Inter-American jurisdictions, the Commission’s
jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating on the legality or constitutionality or otherwise of national
laws. Where the Commission finds a legislative measure to be incompatible with the Charter, this
obliges the State to restore conformity in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 ( Cf. Zanghi v
Italy, 194 Eur Ct HR (Ser A) 48 (1991)).
69. It is stated further that the limitation of the right is provided for in the Zambian Constitution and
that it is justifiable by popular will in that, following the work of the Mwanakatwe Commission on the
Constitution, it was recommended that the Zambian people desired “to save and preserve the Office of
the President for Zambians with traceable descent…” Regarding the claim that the measure deprived
some thirty five per cent of Zambians of their rights under the previous Constitution, counsel for the
Respondent State dismisses this as mere speculation.
70. The Commission has argued forcefully that no State Party to the Charter should avoid its
responsibilities by recourse to the limitations and “claw-back” clauses in the Charter. It was stated
following developments in other jurisdictions, that the Charter cannot be used to justify violations of
sections of it. The Charter must be interpreted holistically and all clauses must reinforce each other.
The purpose or effect of any limitation must also be examined, as the limitation of the right cannot be
used to subvert rights already enjoyed. Justification, therefore, cannot be derived solely from popular
will, as such cannot be used to limit the responsibilities of State Parties in terms of the Charter. Having
arrived at this conclusion, it does not matter whether one person or thirty five percent of Zambians are
disenfranchised by the measure. That anyone is disenfranchised is not disputed and this constitutes a
4
violation of the right .
71. The Commission has arrived at a decision regarding allegations of violation of Article 13 by
examining closely the nature and content of the right to equality (Article 2). It cannot be denied that
there are Zambian citizens born in Zambia but whose parents were not born in what has become
known as the Republic of Zambia following independence in 1964. This is a particularly vexing matter
as the movement of people in what had been the Central African Federation (now the States of
Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe) was free and that by Zambia’s own admission, all such residents
were, upon application, granted the citizenship of Zambia at independence. Rights that have been
enjoyed for over 30 years cannot be lightly taken away. To suggest that an indigenous Zambian is one
who was born and whose parents were born in what came (later) to be known as the sovereign
territory of the State of Zambia may be arbitrary and its application of retrospectivity cannot be
justifiable according to the Charter.
72. The Charter makes it clear that citizens should have the right to participate in the government of
their country “directly or through freely chosen representatives…”. The pain in such an instance is
caused not just to the citizen who suffers discrimination by reason of place of origin, but the rights of
the citizens of Zambia to “freely choose” political representatives of their choice is also violated. The
purpose of the expression “in accordance with the provisions of the law” is surely intended to regulate
how the right is to be exercised rather than that the law should be used to take away the right.
73. The Commission believes that recourse to Article 19 of the Charter was mistaken. The section
dealing with “peoples” cannot apply in this instance. To do so would require evidence that the effect of
the measure was to affect adversely an identifiable group of Zambian citizens by reason of their
common ancestry, ethnic origin, language or cultural habits. The allegedly offensive provisions in the
Zambia Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1996 do not seek to do that.
Holding
For the above reasons, the Commission
Holds a violation of Articles 2, 3(1) and 13 of the African Charter
Strongly urges the Republic of Zambia to take the necessary steps to bring its laws and Constitution
into conformity with the African Charter
Requests the Republic of Zambia to report back to the Commission when it submits its next country
report in terms of Article 62 on measures taken to comply with this recommendation
rd
th
Tripoli, Libya, 23 April to 7 May 2001.
Footnotes
1. Vide General Comment No 9 (XIX/1998) on The Duty to Give Effect to the Covenant in the Domestic Order.
The UN Committee on Economic and Social Rights has established that “legally binding international human
rights standards should operate directly and immediately within the domestic legal system of each State Party,
thereby enabling individuals to seek enforcement of their rights before national courts and tribunals.” The
Committee argues that States have an obligation to promote interpretations of domestic laws which give effect to
their Covenant obligations” (Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by
Human Rights Treaty Bodies; HR1/GEN/REV.4; February 2000; pp.48-52).
Although directed at the application of international law in domestic courts, Benedetto Confortu’s note of caution is
appropriate:
In our view, it is necessary to take a cautious approach in accepting the existence of an exceptional category of
international norms that owe their non-executing nature to their substantive content. Such an exception must not
lead to political manoeuvring in the form of non-implementation of rules found to be [quote]‘undesirable’, either
because they are considered contrary to national interest, or because they entrench progressive values, or finally,
because they are viewed suspiciously by an internal judge purely by reason of their origins.[/quote] With F
Franscioni, (Eds), in Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts; 1997: The Hague; Martinus
Nijhoff; p.8.
2. The Commission held in respect to the amnesty laws promulgated by the Government of Uruguay: where it had
been argued that these were valid and legitimate in terms of domestic law and the Constitution and that they had
approval by the democratic majority in a referendum:
… it should be noted that it is not up to the Commission to rule on the domestic legality or the constitutionality of
national laws. However, the application of the Convention and the examination of the legal effects of a legislative
measure, either judicial or of any nature, insofar as it has effects compatible with the rights and guarantees
embodied in the Convention or the American Declaration, are within the Commission’s competence
3. Vide UN Committee on Human Rights General Comment No 18 (XXXVII/1989), pp.103-106), for a fuller
discussion on non-discrimination in the ICCPR
4. Vide UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No 25(XXXVII/1996) where it states: “Persons who are
otherwise eligible to stand for election should not be excluded by unreasonable or discriminatory requirements
such as education, residence or descent, or by reason of political affiliation…” (para.15 at p.127)