course of his whole active life. He deemed himself victim of an injustice caused him by the said State and asked for reparation. 21. The Reply of the State of Mali sets fo1th, for the first time, issues of law in that it raises the question of incompetence of the Comt to adjudicate on the dispute submitted before it, and on the point that, it refuses to recognise Moussa Leo Kei'ta as being qualified to appear before the Community Court. 22. The said Rejoinder of the Applicant (who was represented by a lawyer during the first hearing of the Court) shifted the terrain of the legal debate to that of violation of Human Rights as provided for in Articles 9 and 10 of the 2005 amended Protocol. A) AS TO THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURT OF IBSTICE OF ECOWAS 23. The Application instituting proceedings does not talk about the personal or material competence of the Comt. Only the Reply, the Rejoinder, and the Reply to the Rejoinder do mention it. Hence, one needs to ask whether the Comt of Justice of ECO WAS can adjudicate upon the Application thus filed, or else, whether it has to take account of the supplementary Application deposited at the hearing of the 4 October 2006 in the form of a Rejoinder from the Applicant. 24. The reply to this question can be found in Atticle 37 of the Rules of the Court of Justice, which provides as follows: a) In reply to a rejoinder a party may offer further evidence. The party must, however, give reasons for the delay in offering it. b) No new plea in law may be introduced in the course ofproceedings unless it is based on matters of law or offact which come to light in the course of the procedure. 25. The Defendant's Reply and his further Reply to the Applicant's Rejoinder conclude upon the inadmissibility of Moussa Leo Kerta's appeal, as drawn from the incompetence of the Court, within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of the 2005 Supplementa1y Protocol, which provide as follows: 5 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm