population living in a given territory. Under these circumstances, the African Commission does not find any violation of Article 21(2) of the African Charter. 83. The Complainant also requests the [African] Commission to prescribe the Respondent State to pay him damages and a daily penalty for delay in payment of the sum granted to him by a court ruling, which he estimates at 200.000.000 FCFA [and] 50.000.000 FCFA respectively. 84. The [African] Commission, although admitting that the Complainant suffered some loss due to the delay in the payment of the sum granted by Congolese courts, does not consider itself in a position to put a figure to the loss. This is the reason why, relying on its jurisprudence, especially its decision on communication 59/916 , the [African] Commission recommends that the amount of the compensation be determined according to Congolese legislation. Decision of the African Commission For these reasons, the African Commission Observes that the Republic of Congo is in violation of Articles 3, 7 and 14 of the African Charter; Says that there was no violation of Articles 2 and 21(2) of the African Charter; Urges the Republic of Congo to harmonise its legislation with that of the African Charter; Requests the Republic of Congo to compensate the Complainant as required by paying him the amount fixed by the High Court of Brazzaville, namely the global amount of 195,037,000 FCFA equivalent to 297,333.00 euros; Further requests the Republic of Congo to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the Complainant, the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with Congolese legislation. Done at the 40th Ordinary Session of the African Commission held in Banjul, The Gambia, from 15th - 29th November 2006. 1 See the decision of the European Court on Human Rights in the case Metaxas vs. Greece, no. 8415/02, para. 19, 27th May 2004. 2 Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/03, para 34 × The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants - proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious - without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6 (see Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 510, § 40) 7th May 2002, and Ruianu vs. Rumania, no. 34647/97, 17th June 2003. 3 See Guidelines and Principles on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa. 4 See, among others, the rulings on Hornsby v. Greece of 19th March 1997, Collection 1997-II, pp. 510-511, para. 40, Burdov v. Russia, cited above, supra note 22. 5 See Burdov , cited above; supra note 22, and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9th December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84. 6 Communication 59/91 Embga Mekongo Louis/Cameroon, para. 2. 8