10. He submitted that a close examination of the Supplementaiy Protocol shows that it merely seeks to regulate the proceedings of this Court. There is no place in the Protocol where any relief is provided for, nor does it regulate any rights and obligations. It merely spells out steps to be followed in actions before the Court. That those steps which belong to the area of procedural law must have reh·ospective effect. Consideration of arguments of parties. 11. Mr. Esangbedo argued that the Supplementary Protocol should have reh·ospective effect, as nothing prima facie is indicative of a converse consh1,1ction. 12. It is undeniable that the principles of law as stated by both Counsel regarding retrospectivity of laws are conect. These have been applied in national courts for a long, long while. They have also been accepted in international courts and tribunals. 13. In the Ambatielos case decided by the Inten1ational Court of Justice (ICJ) on 1st July 1952, see page 40 of the ICJ law reports of 1952, the principle of nonretrospective-effect of statutes was accepted. This principle had earlier been recognized by the Pe1nmnent Court of Inte1national Justice (PCIJ) in the Mavromatis Palestine Concession case of August 1924, PCIJ Series A number 2, page 34, where it was stated that the Treaty of Lausanne had expressly provided for it to have reh·oactive effect in Protocol number 12. 14. One of the issues that came up for determination in the Ambatielos case was on jurisdiction. Two Treaties were concluded between Greece and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. One was in 1886 and the other in 1926. Ambatielos' claim was that he had suffered considerable loss as a result of a contractual anangement he had with the Gove1nment of the United Kingdom (UK) in 1919, and also in consequence of certain judicial decisions in the English Courts 4 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm