39. This would have served as an alternative and independent basis for a judgment in favor of the Applicants and could have been resolved despite the decision to deny their property rights. 40. It is undeniable that the Applicants are entitled to compensation for the destruction of property at the site and their economic interests in the peaceful occupation of the site. 41. Dismissing the Applicants’ property right should not affect their right to compensation for their personal property, which was unjustly destroyed. 42. Since the State does not dispute that it destroyed the Applicants' personal property and deprived them of their economic interests in the Gountou Yena site, the Court would necessarily have ordered compensation for those properties had it considered them. c. Title Deed No. 25096 of the citizen Mainassara and Title Deed No. 30637, assigned to Summerset, have the exact origin. 43. In their appeal to the Court, the Applicants demonstrated that Mr. MAINASARA Amadou Oumarou, the purchaser of a parcel of land adjacent to the land in Gountou Yena and which had a legal significance identical to the land in dispute, benefited from preferential and discriminatory treatment in relation to this portion, because of his economic wealth and his proximity to the political power. 44. The elements of the Title Deed No. 25096, issued to Mainassara, expressly declare that the land results from a SUBDIVISION of Title Deed No. 18. 45. A careful reading of the provisions of Title Deed No. 25096 proves that it is the same geographical area; and that Mainassara's title deed was established based on customary possessions certificates identical to those presented by the Applicants. 8