62.Upon examining the foregoing facts, one is left with no doubt that the same facts are at play in the two procedures; since the delivery of the said Judgment by the Honourable Court on 1 July 2016, similar charges have not been filed against Hama Amadou, the Applicant. 63.In the first case, Hama Amadou pleaded that these facts constitute human rights violation and he asked for monetary compensation; in the present case, he equally pleads human rights violation and asks for relief for the harm the violations may have caused him. 64.The Court finds therefore that in the present case, the Application is made by the same Applicant, Hama Amadou, against the same Defendant, the Republic of Niger. The Court equally finds that the Application is based on the same cause, that is to say, human rights violation. The purpose of the request is also the same, in the sense that in both proceedings, the order sought is payment of damages. 65.Now, very obviously, the Honourable Court has sat on this case and already adjudicated and concluded that the Applicant did not produce any decisive proofs capable of establishing evidence of violation of rights. His Application was therefore dismissed. 66.Since Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/16 of the Court is not subject to appeal, it automatically means that the judgment is res judicata, such that that very case which gave rise to the said judgment cannot be brought before the Court for a second time without invoking new facts before the Court. 67.Therefore, irrespective of its apparent consistency with formality, the Application of Hama Amadou is inadmissible before the Court. 68.Since the Application is inadmissible on grounds of res judicata, the Court cannot make any pronouncement on the alleged human rights violation, much less, on the request for damages in reparation for the said violations. Translator : E. Nkansah 16