214. The Complainants submit that the Victims lodged their Complaints to the PPO but the remedies available were not effective. The Complainants submit that the Victims appealed to the PPO to review their decision not to prosecute and their appeal was rejected. Subsequently, they appealed the decision of the PPO to the Appeal Chamber which dismissed their appeal on the basis that the assaults had taken place but that it was 215. AC HP R impossible to identify the perpetrators. The Respondent State agrees with the Complainants‟ submissions that the PPO refused to prosecute the perpetrators and argues that the decision not to prosecute was based on three reasons.75 According to the Respondent State, the PPO and the Appeal Chamber were impartial and independent in their procedures as opposed to the Complainants‟ submissions. 216. The right to fair trial, protected by Article 7 of the African Charter and complemented by Article 26 of the same Charter is a stronghold for the principle of judicial independence and appropriate justice in the African Human Rights System. In this regard, the African Commission provided an insight to Article 7(1) (a) in Kenneth Good v Republic of Botswana where it held that “The right to be heard requires that the Complainant has unfettered access to a tribunal of competent jurisdiction to hear his case. It also requires that the matter be brought before a tribunal with the competent jurisdiction to hear the case.”76 75 See paragraphs 55 to 56 above. 76 Communication 313/05 – Kenneth Good v Republic of Botswana(ACHPR) para 169. 62