0002?E 48. ln this case, the Court notes that, despite the fact that AGRILAND was the Applicant before ECowAS Court of Justice, the rights claimed by that company directly affect the Applicant's individual rights before the Court given the fact that he is the President, Chief Executive Officer, founder and majority shareholder of this ComPanY. 49. ln view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Parties are identical and that, as such, the first condition has been met. 50. With regard to the second condition, namely, identity of the claims, this Court notes that in the case examined by ECOWAS Court of Justice, the Applicant prayed the Court to "find and rule that the decisions rendered by the lvorian courts... constitute serious violations of his rights "guaranteed, inter alia, by the Charter and "to order the State of COte d'lvoire to pay him the sum of two billion (2,000,000,000) CFA Francs as damages" as well as pay the costs of the proceedings. These claims are identicalwith those made before this Court with the exception of the claim regarding the partiality of the Daloa Court of Appeal. 51. ln its Reply, the Applicant argues that the present Application "is not entirely identical to that submitted to ECOWAS Court of Justice" given that the Court did not "refer to the situation whereby the Court divested the Daloa Court of Appeal, as a case of human rights violation". Noting that this claim was not expressly invoked before the ECOWAS Court of Justice, this Court observes that the claim is not detachable from those claims examined by ECOWAS; and as such, the issue in reality is one of a bloc of claims. Going by the accepted notion of "settlement" adopted above, the identity of claims also extends to their additional and alternative nature or whether they derive from a claim examined in a previous case. L4 P'U (?ry \ (