54 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) 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. The Court agrees with the Commission’s finding in 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 them shouldn’t be used as a means of giving credence to violations of the express provisions of the Charter …. It is important for the Commission to caution against a too easy resort to the limitation clauses in the African Charter. The onus is on the state to prove that it is justified to resort to the limitation clause.” Having ratified the Charter, the Respondent has an obligation to make laws in line with the intents and purposes of the Charter. Thus it is the view of the Court that whilst the said clause envisages the enactment of rules and regulations for the enjoyment of the rights enshrined therein, such rules and regulations may not be allowed to nullify the very rights and liberties they are to regulate. Wherein lies any freedom if in order to even choose a representative of one’s choice one is compelled to choose only from persons sponsored by political parties, however unsuitable such persons might be. To the extent that the said provision reserves to the citizen the right to participate directly or through representatives in government, any law that requires the citizen to be part of a political party before she can become a presidential candidate is an unnecessary fetter that denies to the citizen the right of direct participation, and amounts to a violation. 110. Finally on the issue that the 2nd Applicant has now formed his own political party, the Court finds that it does not in any way absolve the Respondent from any of its obligations. If the 2nd Applicant in his eagerness to participate in politics as a responsible citizen forms his own party to cross the hurdle set up by the Respondent, he should not be forced to continue if he finds himself unable to cope with the burden of establishing and maintaining a political party. It cannot be said he has not been prevented from freely participating in the government of his Country. He tried it once and if he no longer wishes to go that route, he has the right to seek to insist on the strict observance of his Charter rights. And having chosen not to form his own party, must he be excluded? Certainly not. Indeed, it is even arguable that, even if the