004079 i. Alleged violation of the right to be tried by a competent court 125. The Applicant argues that if the law confers on CRIET the jurisdiction to hear certain cases and prescribes that those cases undergoing investigation or inquiry be transferred to it, cases already adjudicated are not affected by this prescription. He further argued that this would be otherwise only where the law created CRIET as a second-instance court or a court of appeal for decisions rendered in cases within its jurisdiction prior to the entry into force of the law that established it, which for the Applicant is not the case . 126. Invoking Article 20 17 of Law No. 2018-13 of 2 July 2018 creating CRIET, the Applicant argues that, in accordance with this law, no mention is made that CRIET can be seized of cases already tried, but rather of cases under investigation and inquiry. 127. He submits that , as far as concerns him , the facts brought before CRIET have already been adjudicated at first instance, that the Judgment became definitive and that, in the circumstances, CRIET is in no way competent to retry the case. He avers in conclusion that the Respondent State has violated Article 14(1) of ICCPR in as much as the Respondent State has caused him to be tried by an incompetent court. 128. The Respondent State submits that in the present case, CRIET has full jurisdiction, as a court of appeal , to hear the appeal lodged by the Attorney General of the Cotonou Court of Appeal against Judgment No. 262/1 FD-16 of 4 November 2016 . 129. It states that the fact that the Applicant challenges the jurisdiction of CRIET by suggesting that the latter has been seized of a case that has already been tried , is 17 This text reads as follows : " Upon the establishment of the Anti-Econom ic Crimes and Terrorism Court, the procedures within the ambit of its jurisdiction, including investigations or inquiries pending before the competent courts shall, upon requisition by representatives of the competent public prosecutor's office , be transferred to the Special Prosecutor of the court for continuation , as the case may be, of the prosecutor's investigation by the Special Prosecutor, of the investigation by the commiss ion of inquiry, the resolution of litigations in matters of freedo d detention by the chamber of liberties as ::" r ~t~n and ~Udgment by th I O~ ?!f; ~