85. The Applicant further contends that despite the clarity of the legal provision, the Cassation Court rendered an arbitrary decision against him. Thus, the Cassation Court ruled on the matter in disregard of the express provisions of the law by deciding not to refer the matter back to the Court of Appeal for determination, and ultimately to the full bench of the Cassation Court for a final determination. 86. The Applicant argues that the judgment 15 October 2008 in Case No. 20283, which upheld the auctioneer’s decision in favour of AEREC, is a gross violation of the procedural rules under Tunisian domestic law, in particular Articles 444 and 425 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedures. 87. In reply, the Respondent State avers that the decisions issued by its domestic courts are faultless, given the safeguards enshrined by the lawmakers, such as the principle of two-tier litigation and the oversight role of the Cassation Court, a court established by the law, and composed of competent, impartial and independent judges with recognized experience in the field, in accordance with the law. 88. The Respondent State also submits that the Applicant did not own the property in question at any time before or after the dispute, and thus entered the auction on equal footing with other members of the public. 89. The Respondent State further submits that in making their decisions, its domestic courts defer to no other authority than the law, not even to the State under which they are established, so that they are independent. It is the Respondent State’s contention that as a result, it is not responsible for the decisions of its domestic courts and is not in any manner obligated to compensate anyone for prejudice arising from court decisions. *** 19