103. The Court, in its previous judgments in the Matters of Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila and Lohé Issa Konaté, decided that “there was no need to go through the same judicial process the outcome of which was known", 104. In view of the Applicant to aforesaid, exercise the Court the finds remedies that mentioned it was by not necessary for the Respondent (supra, the paragraphs 85 and 86). 105. The Court consequently declares the Application admissible. 106. Having declared that it has jurisdiction to deal with this matter and that the Application is admissible, the Court will now consider the merits of the case. Vil. MERITS OF THE CASE 107. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated its commitment to establish an independent and impartial electoral body as well as its commitment to protect the right to equality before the law and to equal protection by the law, as prescribed in particular by Articles 3 and 13 (1 and 2) of the Charter on Human Rights, Articles 10(3) and 17(1) of the African Charter on Democracy, Article 3 of the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol, Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 26 of the Covenant. a) The allegation according to which the Respondent State violated its obligation to establish an independent and impartial electoral body 108. The Applicant independent and submits that the right for impartial electoral bodies the citizens emanates to have national from the commitment * Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila (Preliminary Objection of Inadmissibility) Judgment of 14 June 2014, paragraph 82.3 and Lohé Issa Konaté (Application 004/2013, Judgment of 5 December, 2014, paragraph 112 aCeNE 2 Ss