III.3- To start with, he explained that on the issue of the lawfulness of his
committal order dated 17 July 2010 and secondly that of the non observance of
the rules of public order prior to any admission to a prison, were asked directly
for the first time at the Court in the conclusions of 26 September 2013, that it is
easy to note that neither in the summary of his claims, nor in the summary of
facts nor in the summary of pleas in law raised in support of his claims, nor in
his claims, did the Court find and discussed the absolute authentic documents
establishing breaches in the committal order of 17 July 2010 and breaches in
the mandatory observance of prior and essential formality of public order of
registration of the title of detention in prison register, that at no time nor at any
level of the judgment the Court was there a ruling on the public policy raised by
the conclusions of 26 September 2013, that the procedure which led to the
judgment subject of the omission to give ruling also manifestly failed to rule on
the separate motion seeking that the judgment of the case be submitted to the
expedited procedure, that it is necessary to emphasize that conclusions
statements were exchanged by the Republic of Benin and himself, that the Court
delivered its decision to that effect at the seat following the waiver expressly
formulated by the Counsel to the Republic of Benin to answer to his reply, the
Court has to correct either by notifying him of the judgment delivered on 30
October 2012 on the expedited procedure, or by ruling if secondarily that was
not the case, that before the hearing on 30 October 2012 in which the Republic
of Benin pleaded before the Court on the motion for expedited procedure by
two letters from its lawyer Maître YEDE invited the Court to rule on documents
stating unequivocally his intention not to be present for this argument, nor
reply to rejoinder on the matter or on any other question of law, that as a result,
the Republic of Benin decided to rescind its decision and submit the replies
which it expressly abandoned, that he then presented three conclusions dated
20, 21 and 22 November 2012, that Mr ASSOGBA one of the counsel to the
Republic of Benin specifically raised the inadmissibility of such conclusions and
sought a ruling from the Court, that the latter joined the incident on the merit,
the Court's response is crucial, that as such there is the need that the Court rule
on this plea which it has failed to respond to in its judgment of 06 March 2014;
III.4-In support of his claims, he relied on the Protocol on the Community Court
of Justice, in Article 29-4 (b) and the Rules of Court, in Articles 23 and 61;
III.5- He requested the this Court to:
- Declare the present application admissible;
4