44. They note that in compliance with the Bamako Court of Appeal of judgment of 31 August 2017, they initiated enforcement proceedings before Ivorian courts since their former employer was domiciled in Cote d’Ivoire. 45. They further aver that against all expectations, the judgment of 31 August 2017 was quashed by the joint chambers of the Supreme Court on 17 April 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “second judgment of the Supreme Court” or the “judgment delivered by the joint chambers the Supreme Court”), and that they initiated proceedings to have the judgment set aside. 46. The Respondent State submits that the case should dismissed since, in its view, the Applicants do not prove their allegations. It argues that its judicial system enables the Applicants to bring their case before the competent national courts to have their rights upheld and recognized. It further maintains that Malian laws, which are compatible with the Charter and the ICCPR, enable the Applicants to choose their defence counsel and to exercise all possible remedies. 47. To this end, Respondent State underscores that it adopted and promulgated Law No. 92-020 of 23 September 1992 on the Labor Code, amended by Law No. 2017-021 of 12 June 2017, governing relations between workers and employers, establishes courts to adjudicate disputes relating to employment contracts. According to the Respondent State, this law offers, among other guarantees, proper administration of justice *** 48. The Court notes that Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter provides that: Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. 12