Value 1 of the Bangalore Pnncrples of Judicial Conduct 2002; (c) whether the
decision violates the rrght to access to justice and effectrve remedies for SADC
c1trzens as guaranteed under Articles 3 and 7 of the African Charter, Articles 18
and 19 of the Tribunal Protocol and UN Basrc Princrples and Guidelines on the
Rrght to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Vrolatrons of lnternatronal
Human Rights Law and Senous Vrolatrons of International Humanrtanan Law;
and (d) whether the decision-making process undertaken in the review of the
SADC Tnbunal junsdrctron are in compliance wrth Article 23 of the SADC Treaty"
3. By letter dated 23 November 2012 , the Regrstry acknowledged receipt of the
request
4 By email sent on 5 December, 2012, the Registry inqurred from the Afncan
Commrssion on Human and Peoples' Rights (herernafter referred to as the
Commissron) whether the subject matter of the Request was related to any
matter pendrng before the Commrss1on
5 . By letter dated 5 December, 2012. the Commissron confrrmed that there was a
matter pending before it "dealing with the suspension of the SADC Tribunal"
6 . By letter dated 10 January, 2013 , the Registry transmitted the letter of the
Commrssion to the Authors and drew their atlentron to Rule 68(3) of the Rules of
Court whrch provrdes that 'the subject matter of the request for advrsory oprnron
shall not relate to an application pendrng before the Commrssion '.
7 As at the date of thrs Order the Authors have not responded or otherwrse reacted
to the Registry's letter of 10 January, 2013 , transmrtting the letter of the
Commrssron to them
3