Commission of the Respondent State and on this Court's judgment of 28 September 2017 to interpret said judgment.? 10. The Court had found in its judgment in APDH v Céte d'Ivoire (merits) that the Respondent State had violated its obligation to establish an independent and impartial electoral body, and consequently, also violated its obligation to protect the right to participate freely in the government of the country. Moreover, the Court found that the Respondent State had violated the obligation to protect the right to equal protection of the law. The Court therefore ordered the Respondent State to amend Law no. 2014-335 of 18 June 2014 on the Independent Electoral Commission to make it compliant with the relevant human rights instruments to which it is a Party.? 11. In its judgment in APDH v Céte d'Ivoire (interpretation) the Court declared the request for an interpretation of the aforesaid judgment inadmissible as it did not relate to any of the operative provisions of the Judgment.4 B. Alleged violations 12. Inthe instant matter the Applicants allege that the Respondent State has violated: i. Its obligation to create an independent and impartial electoral body as provided for under Article 17 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (hereinafter referred to as “ACDEG’) and Article 3 of the Economic Community of Governance supplementary Conflict West Prevention, African States to the Management, (hereinafter referred to as “ECOWAS Protocol Protocol relating Resolution, Democracy to the and Good Mechanism Peacekeeping and For Security Democracy Protocol’); 2 See Actions pour la Protection des Droits de Homme 2 AFCLR 141. on (APDH) v. Céte d'Ivoire (interpretation) (2017) 3 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de I'Homme (APDH) v. Céte d'Ivoire (merits) (2016) 4 Actions pour la Protection des Droits de Homme v. Céte d'Ivoire (interpretation) (2017) 2 668 § 153. AfCLR 141 § 18-19. (APDH) 1 AfCLR 6