16. On these grounds, the African Commission declares the communication admissible. Merits 17. The Complainant alleges a violation of the following articles of the African Charter: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Article 2 : right to enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the Charter, such as the right to property, without any distinction; Article 3 : right to equality and to equal protection of the law; Article 4 : inviolability of the human being, the right to physical and moral integrity; Article 5 : right to human dignity, recognition of his legal status, prohibition of all forms of exploitation and degradation, particularly slavery; Article 6 : right to liberty and security; Article 7 : right to have his cause heard (particularly para. 1(d), impartiality of the courts); Article 8 : freedom of conscience; Article 9 : right to information, freedom of opinion; Article 11 : right to assemble freely with others. 18. The Complainant states that in particular that his sisters, brothers and himself have been deprived of the inheritance of their parents, 4 years after the death of his mother, by Mr Bah Ould Mohamed, on the grounds that their late mother was his slave. 19. In order to get round the ban on slavery in force in Mauritania, Mohamed Moustapha made mention of a donation supposedly given to him by the late mother of the plaintiff. th 20. In a letter of 7 April 1990 addressed to the Head of State by the Complainant and copied to the case file, it is stated that to support his claims on the property of his late mother, Mohamed Moustapha th (his opponent) had produced the certificate of occupancy No. 453 dated 24 November 1972. 21. This permit produced by Mohamed Moustapha had been prepared by the Cadi on the basis of evidence relating to the donation made by the late mother of the plaintiff to Mohamed Moustapha, his opponent. 22. The donation to Mohamed Moustapha was supposedly meant to render freedom to Lady Merien, daughter of the plaintiff’s mother, his slave, but Mohamed Moustapha’s submissions show no tangible evidence of the reason for his being the beneficiary of this donation. 23. The Complainant alleges that some of the witnesses who supported the argument of donation to his opponent later retracted, and he made mention of names such as Imam Mohamed Hamed and others in the letter addressed to the Head of State. 24. The Complainant further alleges, in the same letter, that in opposition to the certificate of th occupancy produced by opponent, he had produced a certificate occupancy No. 66 of 24 April 1971, issued in the name of his mother a few months before her death; that the said document dates before that produced by his opponent. 25. The Complainant also pointed out serious procedural irregularities in the processing of the case in that he had requested the competent legal authorities in vain, to order an investigation which would have proved Mohamed Moustapha’s allegations baseless and proved as a result, the pertinence of the said violations of Article 14 of the African Charter relating to the guarantee of his and his family’s right to property. 26. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania provided an explanation, through the th statement made by its delegation at the 29 Ordinary Session of the African Commission; this th statement was confirmed and supplemented by a document dated 19 June 2001 filed in court. From these documents it would appear that where the Respondent State is concerned: 1. The communication 197/97 introduced against the State of Mauritania by Mr Bah Ould Rabah is based on a dispute relating to the ownership of a real estate which opposes two Mauritania citizens, Mr Bah Ould Rabah (the Complainant) and Mr Mohamed Moustapha Ould Bah;