3. Illusions of a Process: Violating the Right to Fair Trial convicted individuals to have their cases reviewed by a higher tribunal.235 While this provision does not directly extend to administrative or civil proceedings, analogous protections can be found in Article 13 of the ICCPR, which safeguards the rights of aliens facing expulsion.236 This article mandates that individuals be afforded the opportunity to submit reasons against their expulsion and to have their case reviewed by a competent authority, unless compelling national security concerns exist. Similarly, Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees the right to appeal decisions violating fundamental rights,237 as interpreted by the African Court in cases such as Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. State of Tanzania. The Court in Anudo held that Tanzania’s denial of an appeal mechanism in citizenship disputes contravened the Charter’s guarantees, underscoring the critical role of appellate review in protecting fundamental rights.238 The right to appeal has also been embedded in other human rights instruments, reflecting its universality. Article 12 of the European Convention on Nationality requires states to provide for administrative or judicial review of decisions related to citizenship.239 The Inter-American Convention 80 on Human Rights, through Resolution 04/19, emphasises the right to appeal as a minimum guarantee of due process, requiring notification of this right in a language understood by the affected individual.240 Regional frameworks such as the Bangkok Principles further extend this guarantee, specifically in the context of expulsion and deportation, mandating that refugees be allowed to present evidence, appeal decisions, and be represented during the appellate process.241 These instruments collectively affirm that the right to appeal is a cornerstone of effective remedies, ensuring fairness and preventing arbitrary decisions. The absence of a meaningful appellate mechanism in the FT system is particularly troubling when viewed through the lens of the evolving international jurisprudence on effective remedies. The Human Rights Committee has repeatedly emphasised that remedies must be effective in both theory and practice, offering individuals a real prospect of success. In The Nubian Community in Kenya v. The Republic of Kenya,242 the African Commission clarified that a remedy must be available, sufficient, and effective, highlighting that procedural bottlenecks and theoretical remedies without practical implementation do not meet this standard. The International Court of Justice, in the LaGrand243 and Avena244 cases, similarly emphasised the importance of accessible and effective review mechanisms, particularly where procedural barriers have limited the ability of individuals to challenge decisions affecting their fundamental rights. 235 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR), art 14(5). ibid art 13. 237 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (adopted 27 June 1981, entered into force 28 December 1988) 1520 UNTS 217 (African Charter), art 7. 238 Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania (n 83) [113]-[115]. 239 European Convention on Nationality (adopted 6 November 1997, entered into force 1 February 2001) 2135 UNTS 213, art 12. 240 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ‘Inter-American Principles on the Human Rights of All Migrants, Refugees, Stateless Persons and Victims of Human Trafficking’ Resolution 04/19 (approved 7 December 2019). 241 Asian African Legal Consultative Organization, ‘Bangkok Principles on the Status and Treatment of Refugees’ (adopted 24 June 2001), art V(4). 242 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ‘The Nubian Community in Kenya v. The Republic of Kenya’ Communication 317/2006 (28 February 2015). 243 LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America (Judgment) [2001] ICJ Rep 466. 244 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Judgment) [2004] ICJ Rep 12. 236