The African mechanisms have shown a particular sensitivity to questions of historical injustice and highlighted the impact of colonial history on current challenges, in cases dating back to the 1990s that deprecate the imposition of borders and forced movement of labour by the colonial powers. Thus, in the case brought on behalf of former Zambian president Kenneth Kaunda, who had been prevented from running for office again on the grounds that he was actually Malawian, the AfComHPR went well beyond questions of due process in its reasoning, with a statement of much wider resonance: [T]o suggest that an indigenous Zambian is one who was born and whose parents were born in what came (later) to be known as the sovereign territory of the State of Zambia may be arbitrary and its application of retrospectivity cannot be justifiable according to the Charter.156 In its decision on the Nubian Community in Kenya, the AfComHPR stated clearly that ‘States may not discriminate in law or in practice when providing people with or depriving them of nationality’.157 In a later case considering the problems of recognition of nationality faced in Côte d’Ivoire by northern Ivorians and descendants of colonial-era (forced) migrants, the AfComHPR noted that: [N]ationality as an ethnic, social and cultural unit poses a fundamental problem in the African context since the demarcation of borders inherited from independence has caused a split of entities of nationalities that existed before colonisation.158 The judgments condemning racial and ethnic discrimination are, moreover, often directed not only at explicitly discriminatory laws, but much more broadly at rules and procedures that have a discriminatory impact. Although, as Jain notes, the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination is generally not explicitly made in these cases, the decisions do implicitly incorporate the developments in analysis of the impact of indirect discrimination made in relation to other rights.159 In the Yean and Bosico case, the IACtHR urged the Dominican Republic to ‘combat discriminatory practices at all levels’ and adopt affirmative measures to ensure equal protection of the law.160 The African treaty bodies have adopted the same reasoning. The AfComHPR, while noting that not all members of the Nubian community in Kenya were stateless, deplored the ‘arbitrary standards and undue hurdles’ put in place by the administration ‘which impede their access as a community to identity documents which are proof of their citizenship.’ It stated that: [T]he practice of requiring members of the Nubian community, simply because of their ethnic and religious affiliations, to meet different and more burdensome requirements in order to obtain identity documents is discriminatory and places them in a situation of extreme vulnerability as regards the exercise and enjoyment of their rights.161 The ACERWC equally condemned the discriminatory treatment of children of Nubian descent, reaffirming the prohibition on racial discrimination as jus cogens.162 In its General Comment No 2 building on this decision, the Committee condemned discrimination in all 156 Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia Communication No 211/1998 (AfComHPR, 2001) para 71. Nubian Community in Kenya (n 50) para 116. 158 OSJI v Côte d’Ivoire (n 49) para 99. 159 Notably the decision in DH v Czech Republic (2007) 47 EHRR 3, para 175. Discussed in Jain (n 5) 279–81. 160 Girls Yean and Bosico (n 19) para 141. 161 Nubian Community v Kenya (n 50) para 159, see also paras 133, 144. 162 Kenyan Nubian Children’s Case (n 46) paras 47, 55. 157