TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 57 those grounds of justification cannot lend legitimacy to the restrictions introduced by the same constitutional amendments to the right to participate in the Government of one’s country, and the right not to be compelled to be part of an association (supra, paragraphs 107 – 11 and paragraphs 114 -115). It is the view of the Court that the same grounds of justification do not legitimise the restrictions to not be discriminated against and the right to equality before the law. The Court therefore concludes that there has been violation of Articles 2 and 3(2) of the Charter. E. Alleged breach of the rule of law 120. The 2nd Applicant argues that by initiating a Constitutional amendment to settle a legal dispute that was pending before the Courts, the effect of which was to nullify the judicial settlement of the matter, the Respondent abused the distinctive process of constitutional amendment and therefore the principle of the rule of law. The 2nd Applicant contended that the rule of law is a principle of customary international law. The Respondent submitted that the Government of Tanzania fully adheres to principles of the rule of law, separation of powers and independence of the judiciary as provided for under the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. In response to the 2nd Applicant’s argument that the 11th constitutional amendment was in violation of the rule of law; Respondent argued that constitutional review and amendment is not a new phenomenon in Tanzania and that the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania has so far undergone fourteen (14) constitutional amendments. Article 98(1) of the Constitution provides that the Constitution can be amended at any time when the need arises and this is what happened in 1994; therefore, the issue of the rule of law being violated does not arise at all. 121. The Court is of the view that the concept of the rule of law is an allencompassing principle under which human rights fall and so cannot be treated in abstract or wholesale. Furthermore, the Applicants’ claim that the rule of law has been violated is not related to a specific right; therefore, the Court finds that the issue of the violation of the principle of the rule of law does not properly arise in this case. F. Alleged violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 122. The Court notes that it has jurisdiction to interpret the said Treaties vide Article 3(1) of the Protocol which provides that: “the jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and Application of the Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned”. 123. The Court having considered the alleged violations under the relevant provisions of the Charter, does not, however, deem it necessary in this case to consider the Application of these treaties.