45 of the Charter, is an “instrument adopted by the United Nations on human and peoples’ rights” that the Court can “draw inspiration from” in its interpretation of the Charter. 108. Furthermore, it is the view of the Court that the limitation imposed by the Respondent ought to be in consonance with international standards, to which the Respondent is expected to adhere . This is in line with the principle set out in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which provides that: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.’’ Additionally, Article 32 of the International Law Commission Articles on State Responsibility 2001 provides that “the Responsible State may not rely on the provisions of its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations”. 109. The Respondent relies on article 13(1) of the Charter, that the enjoyment of the rights thereunder must be in accordance with the law, that is, the Respondent’s national law. It is pertinent to note that such limitations as may be placed by national law may not negate the clearly expressed provisions of the Charter. Commission’s finding in The Court agrees with the Communication No 212/98 Amnesty International v Zambia Twelfth Activity Report (1998 – 1999) paragraph 50 that: “The Commission is of the view that the “claw-back” clauses must not be interpreted against the Charter. Recourse to