that each party to a procedure must be afforded an equal opportunity to present his or her case; that none shall enjoy a substantial advantage over his/her opponent and that each party should be given the opportunity to present his/her objections to the arguments of the other. 72. The Complainant concludes that the provisions of Article 3 of the African Charter were violated in that he was put in a position of inequality compared to his opponent, Pharmakina Company, by being denied a hearing since the exercise of his right to defence was based on a case file whose submission was made impossible by the Supreme Court. Violation of Articles 7 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (c) 73. Article 7 (1) of the African Charter states: “Everyone has the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violation of his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; b) (…); c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; d) (…)”. 74. In support of his allegations of violation of Article 7 (1) (a) of the African Charter, the Complainant states that, given the civil nature of the fees litigation between him and his former client, Pharmakina Company, he had requested the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court to declare itself incompetent to hear the appeal brought by his opponent. 75. To challenge the jurisdiction of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Complainant states that he had invoked the provisions of Rule 16 (5) of the Framework Rules of Procedure of Congolese Bar Associations, interpreting Article 81 of the Organic Law on Bar Associations, which stipulates that “the National Bar Council shall be an arbitration tribunal ...” This implies, avers the Complainant, that a decision taken by the Bar Council, thus recognized as an arbitral award, can settle only civil cases such as the one of disputed fees. 76. According to the Complainant, para. 7 of the said Regulations reiterate Section 124 of the same law, misinterpreted by the Judgment No. RA 13