, ^0005{i' 10.There are questions which are very relevant to understanding the present case. A reading of the Dexfer decision does not provide answers thereto. However, the principle invoked by the Court is not absolute. lt admits of exceptions, nuances; in fact, exceptions in many already mentioned cases. 11.The ECHR in the Case of A. B. v. Norway, on 15 November 2016, noted that "An individual should have the certainty that when an acquittal or conviction had acquired the force ol res judicafa, he or she would henceforth be shielded from the institution of new proceedings for the same act. This consideration did not apply in a situation where an individual was subjected to foreseeable criminal and administrative proceedings in parallel, as prescribed by law, and certainly not where the first sanction (tax penalties) was, in a foreseeable manner, taken into account in the decision on the second sanction (imprisonment)."5 Such reasoning of the European court is germane to The Dexter Eddie Johnson case. This case, per its determination by the Human Rights Committee, called for additional judicial proceedings. lt is not affected by non bis in idem, to say the least. Having interpreted the principle literally, the Majority departed from the now well-known exceptions to this princiPle. B. The known exceptions to non bis in idem should have applied it is desirable that: "no state may be sued or condemned [more than once] for the same alleged violation of human l2.According to the Decision, rights." The Dexter case provided at least three reasons for raising an exception to the "non bis in idem" principle, guaranteed by Article 56(7). 13.The first reason is that the "bls" which implies a resumption of an identical case, is absent, is not actually present in the instant case. The facts and the law are different. The Applicant's requests before the Court were underpinned by the Committee's Communication.o Requests for compliance with the Committee's u ECHR, Grand Chamber, A and B v. Norway, 15 November 2016, S 79. the substance, the Appticant reguesfs the Court to: "a) Find that the mandatory death sentence imposed on the Applicant is a violation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Charter, 6(1), 7, 14(1) and 14(5) of the ICVPR and 3, 5 and 10 of the UDHR. b) Find that the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of uOn 4