73.Without having appealed to the Administrative Chamber, the Applicant appealed directly to the Court of Justice, 20 years later, for violation of his right to work. 74.Only the decision of the Administrative Chamber of the Court of Appeal could confirm or not the legality of the decision taken by the minister before the Applicant could bring an action before the Court of Justice, for violation of his right. 75.As of the present date, the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, so, the Applicant cannot appeal to the Administrative Chamber of the Court of Appeal. 76.Since the Applicant's notification of retirement, according to his own statements, on March 30, 1996 (see the statement of facts), nearly 20 years have elapsed, without him having appealed to the Administrative Chamber of the Court of Appeal, to challenge the legality of the said act, the validity of which can no longer be called into question before the domestic judge, much less before the ECOWAS Court. 77.The Court of Justice cannot rule on the violation alleged by the Applicant, who due to his silence, during the appeal period, accepted the reform decision; 78.Therefore, Mr. MADO Fidégnon Frederic's application, dated December 8, 2016, must be declared inadmissible, in accordance with the following: B - On the inadmissibility of the alleged crime of torture, which was not legally sanctioned, at the time of the facts. 79.The Applicant claims to have been tortured in 1993. 80.At the time of the alleged acts of torture, according to Law No. 80-1 of August 13, 1980, which establishes the penal code, torture was not yet constituted as a crime. It was only on 15 November 2015 that the 13