00024 ? reach conclusions without having clearly identified the true identity of the Applicant for no cogent reasons is thus at odds with international jurisprudence. We are of the opinion that the Court should have drawn inspiration from similar jurisdictions that have relevant jurisprudence in this regard. 7. ln this regard, we refer to two particular cases, namely Cantos v. Argentina and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece.2 Both these cases dealt with the issue of the identity of individual shareholders and the company as well as the issue of the corporate veil. ln both cases the lnter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, respectively, were faced with the conundrum of whether or not individual shareholder(s) can be regarded as being the same person as the company. 8. Although the approaches of both Courts in the cases mentioned above were not the same, they both gave detailed reasons for how they reached their conclusions. 3 9. The Majority Judgment's failure to elaborate on why the Court reached the decision it did in determining that the Applicant and AGRILAND are deemed to be the same person potentially leaves a wide room for various interpretations. 10. This concern becomes more troublesome when we look into the issue of admissibility in terms of Article 56(6) of the Charter, where the Court held that, local remedies had been exhausted although the Party which exhausted remedies at the local level was AGRILAND, as opposed to the Applicant before the Court. 11. We take cognisance of the fact that at the national level the company or corporate veil is lifted under very strict conditions and therefore the shareholders generally do not bear individual responsibility at that level for any violations by their companies but such shareholders can come before this Court to assert violations of their individual rights if they can demonstrate that the Respondent State had an opportunity to rectify such violation through its domestic judicial procedures.a ln our considered view, such an approach would ensure that the Court adopts a cautious approach when applying Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40 (1)in such circumstances. lnter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Cantos v. Argentina Judgment of September 7, 2001 (Preliminary Objections) and Agrotexim and Othersv. Greece 14807189, (1996) EHRR 250, [1995] 2 ECHR 42. 3 Cantos v Argentina,(Preliminary Objections), Para27- 31 and Agrotexim and Others v. Greece paras 62 and 66. 4 fs Application No 006/2012. Judgment of 2810512017, African Commission on Human and Peoples' para. 94. of Kenya, v Republic 3