Victim. As a result, the Complainant avers that, in view of the Court’s decision, the Deeds Office cancelled the registration under the name of the State, the deed of sale was drawn on 04 March 2009, and the house was re-registered in the name of Maria Alves Moreira Calvo. The Complainant submits that this was followed by registration of the property in the name of the Victim. 7. The Complainant submits that on 25 March 2009, the Victim gave notice requesting the State to return the house to him within 30 days; however, the State responded that it would only return the house against a judicial order executing the Court’s judgment. The Complainant submits that in response the Victim filed an application against the State in the 4th Division of the Judicial Court of the City of Maputo seeking execution of the judicial order for the return of the house on 08 June 2009, which was officially received on 10 June 2009. 8. The Complainant submits that the State approached the Attorney General of the Republic and recommended that he should prevent execution of the judicial order by making use of the special prerogative conferred by Law no. 22/07 and DecreeLaw no. 1/05, thereby applying to the Supreme Court for a stay of the ruling and annulment of the judgment in Case no. 127/07. The Complainant submits that on 21 October 2009, the Attorney General filed an application with the 1st Division of the Supreme Court, registered as Case no. 159/09. 9. The Complainant submits that on 20 November 2011, the 1st Division of the Supreme Court annulled the decision of Case no. 127/07 on the grounds that it was patently illegal. The Complainant further submits that the Victim was not summoned to argue his case before the Supreme Court, because he was not regarded as a party to the case. 10. The Complainant avers that on receipt of the judgement from the 1st Division of the Supreme Court, the 4th Division of the Judicial Court of the City of Maputo informed the Victim of the decision. In response, the Victim filed an application in the Judicial Court of the City of Maputo to withhold execution of the Supreme Court’s judgment in order to refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, to examine the case and to declare the rulings conferring on the Attorney General, and on the Divisions of the Supreme Court, special powers to annul judgments as unconstitutional. The Complainant avers that in response, the Judge dismissed the application in an Order issued on 19 March 2012. The Complainant further avers that the Judge stated inappropriately that the application should have been filed with the Supreme Court. 11. The Complainant submits that, having exhausted judicial avenues to reinstate his rights over the house, the Victim applied to the Ombudsman requesting him to ask the Constitutional Council to assess and declare the unconstitutionality of Law no.22/07 and in his reply of 13 July 2012 the Ombudsman found the Victim’s application inadmissible. Articles alleged to have been violated 2