83. The Commission recalls that its role consists precisely in pronouncing on allegations of violations of the human rights protected by the Charter of which it is seized in conformity with the relevant provisions of that instrument. It is of the view that an amnesty law adopted with the aim of nullifying suits or other actions seeking redress that may be filed by the victims or their beneficiaries, while having force within Mauritanian national territory, cannot shield that country from fulfilling its international obligations under the Charter. 84. Also, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, being a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, has no basis to deny its citizens those rights that are guaranteed and protected by an international convention, which represents the minimum on which the State Parties agreed, to guarantee fundamental human freedoms. The entry into force of the Charter in Mauritania created for that country an obligation of consequence, deriving from the customary principle pact sunt servanda . It consequently has the duty to adjust its legislation to harmonise it with its international obligations. And, as this Commission has previously had to emphasise, “contrary to other human rights instruments, the African Charter does not allow for derogation from obligations due to emergency situations. Thus, even a situation of civil war […] cannot be cited as justification for the violation by the State or its authority to violate the African Charter” (cf. communication 74/92, para. 36). 85. Finally, the Commission interprets the provisions of Article 56(5) in the light of its duty to protect human and peoples’ rights as stipulated in the Charter. The Commission does not believe that the condition that internal remedies must have been exhausted can be applied literally to those cases in which it is “neither practicable nor desirable” for the complainants or the victims to pursue such internal channels of remedy in every case of violation of human rights. Such is the case where there are many victims. The gravity of the human rights situation in Mauritania and the great number of victims involved renders the channels of remedy unavailable in practical terms, and, according to the terms of the Charter, their process is «unduly prolonged”. In addition, the amnesty law adopted by the Mauritanian parliament rendered obsolete all internal remedies. For these reasons, the Commission declares the communications admissible. Merits 86. In June 1996, the Commission sent a good-offices mission to Mauritania. The delegation met with members of the government and non-governmental organisations to discuss the overall human rights situation in the country. 87. The mission was undertaken at the initiative of the Commission in its capacity as promoter of human and peoples’ rights. It was not an enquiry mission; and while it permitted the Commission to get a better grasp of the prevailing situation in Mauritania, the mission did not gather any additional specific information on the alleged violations, except on the issue of slavery. The present decision is therefore based on the written and oral declarations made before the Commission over the past six years. 88. In the case under consideration, no indication from the government, with the exception of the issue of slavery, seeks to refute the facts adduced in the communications. The representative of the th government, who appeared before the Commission at the 19 Session and subsequent sessions, admitted that the communications of which the Commission was seized “deal with a naturally deplorable, but peculiar and exceptional situation [...] that has in any case since been surmounted... ”. And according to the government, “most of the issues raised have already been resolved, others are in the process of being settled”. It claims, as regards the ex-prisoner civil servants that “the démarches undertaken by those who have constituted themselves into a collective are the result of manipulations of the opposition…” with the aim of countering government action. 89. Though the above-mentioned declaration by the government representative could have constituted a basis for an amicable solution, such a solution could only take place with the agreement of the parties. However at least one of the complainants has clearly indicated that a resolution can only be reached on the basis of some specific conditions, of which none has so far been met to its satisfaction. While it appreciates the government’s good will, and hopes to collaborate with it in future to ensure the effectiveness of the settlement of the damages suffered by all the victims of the events