the United Nations Human Rights Commission under the ECOSOC Resolution 1503 proceedings. 61. Furthermore, the Respondent State also references the Commission’s decision in Bob Ngozi v. Egypt, that, the Commission noted that a similar matter had been submitted before the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention and Protection of Minorities. 62. The Applicants aver that in the Anaclet Paulo case, the issue for determination was Mr. Paulo’s detention, while the contentious issue in the instant case is the provisions of Section 148(5) of the CPA and therefore, the issues in the two cases are different. 63. The Applicants further contend that the Respondent State has cited the decision in the matter of Anaclet Paulo v. Tanzania, “out of context”, noting that Mr. Paulo did not pray for a declaration that Section 148(5) of the CPA is an infringement to Articles 1,2,6 and 7 of the Charter. 64. In addition, the Applicants submit that the Parties in the instant case are distinct from the Applicant in the Anaclet Paulo case. 65. Lastly, the Applicants aver that the cases cited in support of the Respondent State’s case do not bind this Court. They aver that, unlike the cases cited by the Respondent State, the instant case provides the opportunity for the Court to consider an issue de novo that has never been raised in any other international tribunal which is the compatibility of Section 148(5) of the CPA with the Charter. *** 66. Article 56(7) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules stipulate that Applications will be considered by the Court if they: “do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of the African Union or the provisions of the Charter.” 16