the marital bond between them continues, and the filing of a case of adultery against one party is valid as long as the judgment has not become final.”18 107. The Court recalls that the Applicant alleges that she was unaware of her husband’s appeal of the above ruling. However, the Applicant being unaware of her husband’s appeal does not negate the fact that the divorce ruling was not final with the result that, under Tunisian law, the marriage relationship is considered to be in effect until a decision is rendered on the appeal. In the circumstances, it was the Applicant’s duty to verify her marital status in accordance with the laws of the Respondent State. Specifically in this context, the Applicant ought to have taken steps to verify whether an appeal had been lodged and whether it had been concluded so that the divorce ruling, in her favour, would become final. 108. Given that the particular law being challenged by the Applicant applies equally to both men and women, in the context of divorce proceedings, the Applicant’s allegation that she was forced to continue her marital life in violation of her right to personal liberty and discrimination against women has no basis and is therefore dismissed by the Court. 109. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to terminate her marriage, protected under Articles 1(f)(g) and 7 of the Maputo Protocol as read jointly with Article 12 of the UDHR. ii. On the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial 110. The Applicant maintains that the absence of a constitutional court in the Respondent State violates her right to bring legal proceedings, as there was no avenue to challenge the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Penal Code in terms of violation of the right to liberty and to the legality of offenses. 18 Penal decision of supreme court No. 1323 dated 04/06/1975. 29