competent authority of the case file supporting the request for a blocking order and the hearing of evidence from the affected person or institution, unless this is impossible or incompatible with the “interests” pursued. j) Notification of the blocking order and the grounds for it to the person or institution affected. k) A judicial appeal procedure against the blocking order. In other decisions on similar cases, the ECtHR has expressed positions close to the ones in Ahmed Yildirim v. Turkey. For example, in OOO Flavus and others v. Russia, the Court reasoned that “blocking access to an [entire] website was an extreme measure which (…) deliberately disregarded the distinction between the legal and illegal information the website might contain,” and that the “measures taken before a judicial decision had been issued on the illegality of the published content had amounted to a prior restraint on publications.” In the cases of Engels v. Russia, Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia and Bulgakov v. Russia, the ECtHR found that the respective interferences from the application of the procedural law had arbitrary and excessive effects as it did not afford the applicant the required degree of protection and opportunity to be heard. Additionally, the ECtHR found that the domestic law remedy was ineffective; the appellate court did not consider the substance of the applicant’s grievances. The role of sub-regional courts: the use of regional human right standards by the ECOWAS Court Beyond the case law of the ECtHR, it is necessary to look into other sub-regional case law to find significant decisions dealing with internet shutdowns and similar restrictions from an international human rights perspective. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights establishes the African Court of Human and People’s Rights as the central pillar of the African human rights system beyond national protection mechanisms. However, in recent years, new layers have been added at the so-called sub-regional level. In particular, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the East African Court of Justice, as part of the East African Community (EAC), are fostering freedom of expression and particularly human rights on the internet through their recent jurisprudence. The different sub-regional economic communities existing in the continent were mainly created for economic integration purposes and may lead to the creation of a future African Economic Community (Treaty of Abuja of 1991). Integration projects are established to promote socioeconomic rights like the rights to health, education, work, and an adequate standard of living. However, economic integration and human rights protection are to be seen as mutually reinforcing. Therefore, regional economic systems have underscored the recognition, promotion, and protection of human rights among their core objectives or principles. In the case of ECOWAS and EAC this has facilitated the establishment of specific mechanisms (sub-regional courts) for the protection of human rights110. 110 Nyinevi, Christopher Yaw, Ayalew, Yohannes Eneyew, “The Emerging role of African Sub-Regional Courts in Protecting Human Rights on the Internet”, Afronomics Law. November 28, 2022. Available online at: https://www.afronomicslaw.org/category/analysis/emerging-role-af-