IV. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT AS TO FORMALITY Burkina Faso raised two objections: one based on the Court’s lack of jurisdiction in matters concerning application of the domestic law of Burkina Faso in general, and the Constitution of Burkina Faso, in particular; the other, based on lis pendence, that the judge at the local level of the Burkina Faso domestic court system was already seised with the same facts of the case, before the matter was brought before the ECOWAS Court of Justice. Indeed, the written pleadings of the two Parties reveal numerous references to the domestic law of Burkina Faso, be it the Constitution or many other codes. The Applicant in particular meant to contest certain measures taken against him by virtue of provisions of the Constitution. On its part, the Defendant State invoked a number of texts – such as Law 061-2008/AN of 27 November 2008, Regulations on Networks and Electronic Communication Services in Burkina Faso, or the Burkinabe Civil Code – to justify, notably, the tapping of the telephone conversation. Now, the norms referred to by the Court are, in principle, the norms of international law binding on the Member States. At any rate, that is the reason why only States are defendants in proceedings before the Court for human rights violation. Therefore, and in accordance with a well-established jurisprudence, all the points of argumentation based on the domestic law must be set aside. In another instance, the Defendant State raised an objection concerning lis pendence, in claiming that the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS shall decline its jurisdiction in so far as the local courts of Burkina Faso had already been seised with the same case at the time it came before the said Community Court of Justice. With regard to this point, and judged against the circumstances of the instant case, it remains permissible for the Court to examine the scope within which to adjudicate over the matter brought before it. The truth remains that in principle, where a case is lodged before the local judge under the domestic court system of a Member State, there is no bar on the Community Court preventing it from entertaining the same case. In the terms of Article 10 of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol on the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS access to the Court is only 7