001t05 those companies, the Respondent state had violated the Applicant's right to property enshrined in Article 14 of the Charter 121. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Respondent State must reopen the said media outfits and lift the suspension of socorRAc sARL container terminal. iv. Guarantee of non-repetition 122. The Applicant prays the Court to order the Respondent State to stay the application of certain domestic laws considered unconstitutional and inconsistent with international human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent state. 123. The Respondent State submits that the laws invoked by the Applicant were adopted by a sovereign State in accordance with its laws and thus, no authority can order a stay of their application or their nullity. 124. The Court recalls that in its Judgment of 29 March 201 9, it found that the provisions of Sections 12 and 19(2) of Law No. 2018-13 o12 July 2018 establishing CRTET are not consistent with international human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State, notably Article 3(2) of the Charter and Article 14(5) of the lCCpR. 125. The Court noted in particular that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to equal protection of the law guaranteed under Article 3 of the Charter for the reason that Section 12 of the Law of 2 July 2018 establishing CRIET does not establish equality between the parties. 126. With regard to the non-compliance of Section 19(2) with the provisions of lCCpR, the Court recalls that it held that the Respondent State violated the Applicant's right to appeal guaranteed by Article 14(5) of the ICCPR forthe reason that Section 19(2) 32