(b) That the Application is inadmissible before the Court, on the grounds that the Applicant omitted to exhaust local remedies as stipulated in Article 56(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. (c) That the Application is inadmissible, on the ground Applicant's claim is based on non-renewable contract employment, counter-offers and offers based on quantun meruit, which do not constitute fundamental rights positively established by statute or by contract. (d) [sic] (e) That the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Case, because the facts thereof do not constitute a human right violation. 13. In its Interim Ruling No. 1 of 14th March, 2007. The Court decided on the Preliminary Objection, by declaring it inadmissible upon its first two points, and joined the preliminary plea to the merits as regards the 3rd and 4th points. This was done in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure. Indeed, the Court ruled as follows: 1. "The Preliminary Objection raised by the Defendants regarding non-exhaustion of local remedies has no relationship with the procedure for accessing the Court; red hence, it is inadmissible". 2. "Whereas the Defendants argued that the Court is devoid of its competence to determine this case without the joinder of the Commonwealth Secretariat; the Court decides that it is competent to hear the substantive case on its merit despite the non joinder of the Commonwealth Secretariat and that the Commonwealth Secretariat is not a necessary party which must be joined by the Plaintiff". 3. "Whereas the Defendants argue that the main application was not properly instituted under the human rights violations and that the complaints of the Plaintiff are not justiciable as human rights violations, the Court decides that the issues stated herein touch on the substantive case which by Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure of this Court shall be taken in the substantive action". 14. When the Case was called for hearing on the merits, the Defendants and their lawyers did not appear in Court. They however wrote a letter, dated 26th April, 2007, to the President of the ECOWAS Commission to express their displeasure with the Decision made by the Community Court of Justice, and to request the President of the Commission to intervene, in order for them to file an appeal. 15. Following this letter, the Court, in an Interim Ruling No. 2, indicated for the purposes of the Defendants, that at the current stage of its procedural texts, provision has not been made for appealing against its decided cases, except the possibility of requesting for a revision. The Court recalled in extensor the provisions of Article 15 paragraph 4 and Article 76 paragraph 2 of the Revised Treaty, and Article 19 paragraph 2 of the 1991 Protocol on the Court, where it is set out as follows: Article 15(4) of the Revised Treaty: Judgments of the Court of Justice shall be binding on the States, the Institutions of the Community and on individu corporate bodies. Article 76(2) of the Revised Treaty:Failing this, either party or any other Member State Authority may refer the matter to Court of the Community whose decision shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal 3