That the State of Senegal has already signed the Convention on Interstate Transport of Merchandise in the ECOWAS area and should therefore be applied in a specific manner; that even if it refers to more general provisions, including the African Charter on Human Rights, in view of the provisions of article 12, the freedom of movement of persons and goods must respect the national legislation of the State, which was not the case of the applicant. That the applicant, in support of his application, has attached 13 documents which were not communicated to him (the defendant), and that this constitutes a breach of the adversarial principle and equality of arms, wherefore the documents must be rejected. 6. DEFENDANT´S CONCLUSIONS The defendant concluded that: a) the petition of the applicant should be declared inadmissible for non-compliance with the provisions of Article 33 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure; ) should be rejected the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant as it was not communicated to the defendant; (c) the applicant's claims should be reject due to lack of grounds; (d) order the applicant to pay the costs. The defendant gathered documents. The applicant replied, claiming that on the first page of the petition is clearly stated his address, that he declared his address of service within the jurisdiction and in Abuja where the court has its seat, that he duly attached his certificate of order, which can be found in the Court registry, that the defendant has not shown by evidence that he refused the applicant´s entry because he did not submit the transport of his goods in accordance with the law. He conclude asking for the present action to be considered well-founded. The documents presented by the applicant were duly translated and notified on the defendant, who came to present his rejoinder in which he argued that: 9