7 sub-region as enshrined m the ECOV/AS Treaty and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Defendant's address 20. Learned counsel to the defendant divided his written address into two parts, arguments intended to disprove plaintiff's arguments and those to buttress its own in these proceedings. 21. With respect to arguments seeking to disprove plaintiff's allegations, learned counsel started by saying that plaintiff's pleadings and conclusions are not based on case law or on Community legislation. He continued that even the principles of law articulated by plaintiff are without reference to specific articles of the legislations it sought to rely on. 22. Learned counsel argued that in plaintiff's introduction, it relied on everything except on human rights violation, the foundation of this suit. Further, learned counsel stated that from the plaintiff's own case, the dispute is exclusively one between three private companies, Ocean King, Sogemar and Euskalduna de Pescz and had nothing to do with the defendant. 23. Further, learned counsel disputed plaintiff's assertion , that it was not infom1ed of the proceedings which eventually led to the award of its vessel to some other entity and therefore amounted to a flagrru1t violation of, its right to property as guaranteed under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Right. 24. Learned counsel contends that the order made by Tribunal Regional Hors Classe de Dakar which divested plaintiff of the ownership of its vessel contained the expression "in the .presence of parties involved" ru1d therefore indicates that the plaintiff and its lawyer Mr. Sall participated in the hearing which they are now challenging. Further, learned counsel contends that if the order was made in default, plaintiff had the option of approaching the court in order to present its case. 25. Again, learned counsel argued that plaintiff's ownership of the vessel, the subject matter of this suit is in dispute. He posited that plaintiff failed to explain to 7