TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 B. 53 The Court’s finding 107.1 The Court agrees with the Commission, that the limitations to the rights and freedoms in the Charter are only those set out in Article 27(2) of the Charter and that such limitations must take the form of “law of general Application” and these must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. This is the same approach with the European Court, which requires a determination of whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. 107.2 Article 27(2) of the Charter allows restrictions on the rights and freedoms of individuals only on the basis of the rights of others, collective security, morality and common interest. The needs of the people of Tanzania, to which individual rights are subjected, we believe, must be in line with and relate to the duties of the individual, as stated in Article 27(2) of the Charter, requiring considerations of security, morality, common interest and solidarity. There is nothing in the Respondent’s arguments set out earlier, to show that the restrictions on the exercise of the right to participate freely in the government of the country by prohibiting independent candidates falls within the permissible restrictions set out in Article 27(2) of the Charter. In any event, the restriction on the exercise of the right through the prohibition on independent candidacy is not proportionate to the alleged aim of fostering national unity and solidarity. 107.3 The Respondent has relied heavily on the Castañeda Gutman v Mexico case. In that case, the Inter-American Court found that individuals had other options if they wished to seek public elective office. Thus, apart from having to be a member of and being sponsored by a political party, one could be sponsored by a political party without being a member of that party and also one could form one’s own political party particularly since the requirements for doing so were not arduous. In the instant case, Tanzanian citizens can only seek public elective office by being members of and being sponsored by political parties; there is no other option available to them. 107.4 The United Nation’s Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 25 on the right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art.25), at paragraph 17 thereof, provides that: “The right of persons to stand for election should not be limited unreasonably by requiring candidates to be members of parties or of specific parties. If a candidate is required to have a minimum number of supporters for nomination this requirement should be reasonable and not act as a barrier to candidacy. Without prejudice to paragraph (1) of Article 5 of the Covenant, political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.” The Court agrees with this General Comment, as it is an authoritative statement of interpretation of Article 25 of the ICCPR, which reflects the spirit of Article 13 of the Charter and which, in accordance with Article 60 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.