004078 unfounded. The Respondent State also submits that, in the first instance, the case that involved the Applicant was tried in flagrant delicto proceedings and that , pursuant to Articles 447 et seq. of the Benin Code of Criminal Procedure, CRIET has jurisdiction to hear any appeal, and that in the circumstances , the investigation should be conducted before the court of appeal or before CRIET. 130. Also relying on the provisions of Article 20 of Law No. 2018-13 of 2 July 2018, the Respondent State maintains that CRIET is competent to hear the procedure up to delivery of decision. *** 131. The Court notes that the question of the competence of CRIET challenged by the Applicant is based on whether the case of high-risk international drug trafficking brought before it in September 2018 was pending before the Cotonou Court of Appeal within the meaning of article 5 in fine of Law No. 2018-13 of 2 July 2018 according to which the cases pending before the courts shall be transferred by the latter to CRIET. 132. In the present case, the Court notes that while the Applicant alleges that Judgment No. 262/1FD-16 of 4 November 2016 has become res judicata, for lack of appeal or opposition, the Respondent State submits that the judgment has been appealed. 133. The Court notes that in order to declare itself competent, CRIET considered that the case of international drug trafficking which involved the Applicant and was the subject of Judgment No. 262/1 FD-16 of 4 November 2016, is an ongoing case insofar as the said Judgment was appealed by the Attorney General. 134. In accordance with Article 20 of Law No. 2018-13 of 2018 establishing CRIET, the latter hears drug-trafficking offences and, apart from flagrancy cases and W referral orders, a court which, at the time of setting up CRIET, is seized of a case Withi~r's jurisdiction, must .:> y I S- ~e--' . a case to CRIET. Xc. '~ LP ~