initial case, and the existence of a first decision on the merits. It also argues that in the instant case, the Respondent State has itself acknowledged that there is no decision on the merits concerning the Parties, therefore, it is not necessary to ascertain whether the other conditions are met. 349. The Applicant State avers that, significantly, the identity of subject matter between this Application and the one pending before the EACJ has not been established. It argues that the latter relates to the interpretation and application of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community with regard to violations of that instrument, whereas this Application concerns the allegation of gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights. 350. Secondly, the Applicant State argues that the principle of res judicata should also not be confused with the principle of non bis in idem. In its view, it reflects a presumption of conformity with the law predicated upon a judicial decision, which must therefore be binding on the parties. According to the Applicant State , this requirement is laid down in Article 30 of the Protocol, the content of which was clarified by the Court in the matter of Suy Bi Gohoré Emile and Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. 351. In this respect, the Applicant State underscores that res judicata prevents a legal issue decided between the same parties from being re-examined, thereby calling into question the authority of an earlier decision which is binding on the parties. It points out that infringement of the principle of non bis in idem is always coupled with infringement of the principle of res judicata, but the opposite is not always true. 352. It reiterates that the Respondent State itself has acknowledged that there is no previous judicial decision relating to the violations alleged in this Application. It concludes that the argument relating to non-compliance with the res judicata principle cannot prosper in the instant case. 78