- Award him the full benefit of its conclusions of 17 December 2012
requesting the inadmissibility of the conclusions by the Republic of Benin
dated 20, 21 and 22 November 2012;
- Award him the full benefit of its conclusions of 26 September 2013;
- To adjudge and declare, in relation to the motion for expedited procedure
dated 25 April 2012: If secondarily it was not considered, it is substantive
and to grant it in the light of the conclusions of parties,
Or if such is already the case so that it supports it, to kindly notify the
parties;
To take into consideration while ruling for legal purpose in respect of
these proceedings;
- To find the arbitrary nature of his detention in the light of the content of
the minutes of findings with bailiff summons dated 16 and 23 September
2013, to note that he requested the benefit of Article 9.5 of the
International Covenant on civil and Political rights and on this grounds,
requested that the Court award him financial compensation which it may
wish to fix supremely the quantum for each day of arbitrary detention
undergone since 12 July 2010 until the day of his actual release;
- Order the Republic of Benin to pay him full reparation;
- Also order the Republic of Benin to bear the entire costs.
III. 6- In response, the Republic of Benin filed in the Registry of the Court on 12
November 2014 a “statement of” and “substantive statement” both dated 31
October 2014;
III.7- The Republic of Benin claimed in the defence, that pursuant to Article 64
of the Rules of Court “Where the Court omits to give a decision on a specific
head of claim or on costs, any party may within a month after service of the
judgment apply to the Court to supplement its judgment…” that the application
of Mr AMOUSSOU is dated 18 July 2014 eight (08) days after his follow-up letter
to the Court and its receipt at the Registry is 23 September 2014 which is two
(02) months later, that the application dated 18 July suggests that the applicant
obtained service of judgment under appeal before that date if not he would have
noticed that there is a omission to rule in the judgment, between 18 July 2014
date of application and 23 September 2014 date of receipt at the Registry it
would be more than two (02) months in that this action no longer fits within
the statutory period of one month from the date of service provided for in
Article 32.3 of the Rules, having filed outside the deadline, the appeal of Mr
Georges C. AMOUSSOU should be declared inadmissible;
5