- �CHP�_ ' . ACHPR ) African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 19. Following the revelations relating to the conduct of the then CJ and the latter's decision provisionally permitting a suspended medical doctor to practice, the Complainant moved the Court in February 2012 that his application for re-opening the disciplinary proceedings should be re-called. Pending the determination of this application, he also sought an interim relief allowing him to practice as the CJ had done with the medical doctor. By the time the Complainant filed his submissions on admissibility in December 2013, the Supreme Court before whom he had made his application in February 2012 had not delivered any ruling on his request for interim relief. 20. Furthermore, the 1 July 2011 ruling kept on haunting him in several other cases which he had initiated in person. In 2013 the Complainant requested that a five­ member bench should be constituted to revisit the issue of litigants in person as decided in the 1 July 2011 ruling. He requested the issue to be revisited in lieu of six cases (D Hurnam v The State of Mauritius & KP Matadeen and 5 other cases) in which he sought to act in person. The request was based on: (a) the fact that the JCPC which is the highest court for Mauritius allows litigants in person to initiate their appeals; (b) the fact that after the 1 July 2011 ruling and subsequent proceedings in which the Complainant was acting in person, the CJ proposed an amendment to the relevant rules to seal any loopholes in the 1 July 2011 ruling, which imply that he had a valid point that persons can institute proceedings in person; and (c) the argument that the 1 July 2011 ruling breached the equality of arms and discriminated between plaintiff and defendant litigants as the latter are allowed to defend suits in person. He states that the five-member bench he had requested was necessary since it is only a bench of that composition that could overrule the legal position enunciated in the 1 July 2011 ruling of the full bench of the Supreme Court. 21. On 2nd May 2013 his request for a five-member bench was declined by a single judge on the grounds that the issue in question had already been settled by a five­ member bench of the Supreme Court as per the 1 July 2011 ruling; and that there did not appear to be such magnitude in the interests at stake or such importance or intricacy of the questions of fact or law involved, in terms of section 36 of the Courts Act. 22. The Complainant states that the July 1 , 201 1 ruling continued to be invok cases in which he sought to act in person. He instituted the case of Page 5 of 45 AG���· African Commission on Human and 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Komb West Coast Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: Email: au-banjul@ \ /