49.Upon scrutiny, the Application is not anonymous and the Applicant has not lodged the same matter before another International Court for adjudication. The Court is therefore, in principle and on the face of it, declares the Application admissible. 50.All the same, it is worthy to recall that in the Defence against the Application filed by Hama Amadou, the Republic of Niger invoked res judicata, which, legally speaking, is a foreclosure (an estoppel). 51.The Court emphasises that res judicata is the sum total of effects arising from a court decision in such manner as to render the decision not contestable except under legally open channels. 52.A court decision is binding on the parties and all the courts of justice; a court decision thus prevents other courts from settling the same dispute for a second time. 53.However, res judicata only concerns the subject-matter of the decision made in court. 54.The orders sought must have been made by the same parties and against the same parties, and must be based on the same cause; what is asked for from the court must remain the same. 55.Incidentally, the Republic of Niger avers that the present case is exactly the same as the one Hama Amadou filed before the Honourable Court (ECW/CCJ/APP/32/15) which was decided on its merits in Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/16; the Republic of Niger consequently affirms that the force of res judicata is applicable. 56. On the contrary, Hama Amadou maintains that the present procedure is completely different from the first one in the sense that unlike the first one, he is now invoking violations of: right to security, right to equality before the law, right regarding violation of the law of nulla poena sine lege, right to fair hearing, and right to family life. Translator : E. Nkansah 13