49. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection in this regard. ii. Objection based on the principle of sovereignty and independence of the judiciary 50. The Respondent State argues that the subject matter of the Application relates to a judgment rendered by its domestic courts, which are independent. It therefore submits that questioning decisions rendered by the said courts constitutes a serious infringement on State sovereignty. The Respondent State contends that independence of the judiciary means that the Court should not interfere in the decisions of the Respondent State’s courts and should not issue external decisions purporting to direct its courts or to oppose their decisions. 51. The Respondent State also contends that it cannot be held responsible for decisions issued by its courts simply by virtue of the principle of independence of justice. * 52. The Applicant on his part contends that the Respondent State’s argument based on the principle of sovereignty only stands in the context of inter-state disputes, whereas his dispute with the Respondent State is a personal one, which does not have any effect on the territorial sovereignty of the State. Besides, it has accepted to litigate disputes before this Court. 53. The Applicant further contends that the Respondent State is responsible for the acts of its domestic organs, in line with the principle of legal unity embodied in the concept of “State”. According to the Applicant, going by this principle, the Respondent State is liable for the acts of its officials, and can be sued before this Court since it has accepted the latter’s jurisdiction. *** 11