00a222 i) Equality of justice, fair trial and impartiality of justice (Article 7 of the African Charter): the Court defined the rights concerned, pronounced itself on their violation in light of the facts related by the Applicant and the conduct of the national courts, and then declared the claim unfounded by finding either that the right in question had not been infringed or that the evidence thereof was produced6. (ii) Equality before the law (Article 3 of the African Charter): after defining the rights concerned, the court, recalling its jurisprudence, examined the allegations of violation in light of the facts and the conduct of the national courts. Like the previous point, it declared the claim unfounded for lack of evidenceT. (iii) Effective remedy before national courts (Article 7 (1) of the African Charter): by the same reasoning as in the previous claims, the Court ruled in a similar directions. 58. This Court, after comparison, notes that ECOWAS Court of Justice examined the case on the basis of the same provisions of the Charter as those relied upon by the Applicant in this Application. The case has, consequently, been setged in accordance with lhe principles of one of the instruments invoked in Article 56 (7) of the Charter, as regards the second condition set by this Article. 59. From the foregoing, the Court holds in conclusion that the instant Application has not fulfilled the condition set by Article 56 (7) of the Charter. lt therefore upholds the inadmissibility objection on the grounds of an earlier settlement of the dispute by ECOWAS Court of Justice. 60. 6 Having ruled in this direction, the Court holds that there is no need to make a determination on the other condition of admissibility and on the objection Socr6f6 AGRILAND v. Ihe State of C\te d'lvoire, Judgment No. ECWCCJ/JUD of 24 April, 2015, paras. 36-39. paras 4G47 ldem, paras. 48-52 't ldem, 16 EMv \-e- e-