0aa2?8 c Objection regarding previous settlement of the dispute by ECOWAS Court of Justice 39. The Respondent State submits that the instant Application is inadmissible given that the Applicant has earlier, using the same wording, brought the matter before the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS, which, on two occasions, dismissed his prayer relying on the legal instruments mentioned in Article 56(7). 40. The Respondent State alleges further that the same objection relates to the referral of this case to lhe Centre intemational pour le rdglement des differends relatifs aux investissernenfs (CIRDI) which refused to register the Application on the ground that the matter clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. 41. ln reply, the Applicant argues that ECOWAS Court of Justice did not, in any of its two judgements, apply the instruments mentioned in Article 56(7) of the Charter. ln this regard, the Applicant submits that, in its first decision, ECOWAS Court of Justice held that evidence of the alleged violations has not been provided, whereas for the second decision, that Court simply reiterated the findings contained in the first decision. 42. The Applicant further contends that the instant Application "is not entirely the same as the one filed with ECOWAS Court of Justice"; that in the latter, he "did not plead the fact that the Daloa Court of Appeal's refusal to exercise jurisdiction amounted to a violation of human rights". The Applicant submits in conclusion that "the instant Application which is brought for the first time does not fall within the provisions of Article 40(7) referred to above". 43. ln terms of Article 56(7) of the Charter which is reiterated by Rule 40(7) of the Rules of Court, Applications shall be considered if they "do not deal with cases which have been settled... in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, or the provisions of the present Charter'' 12 ))G-. f',-' )K