10. The Applicant states that since 25 March 2008, the vehicle was parked at Nyarenambu Police Station, thus relieving ATRACO of its responsibility for the vehicle. Even so, according to the Applicant, the question arises as to who is responsible for the poor condition of the vehicle, as no inspection was carried out on the vehicle when ATRACO seized it and when it was transferred to the police station. 11. The Court of First instance delivered judgment No. RC0025/08/TGI/NYGE, stating that possession ATRACO could not return and therefore should a vehicle which was not pay for the damage not caused in its to that vehicle. 12.On 5 October 2009, the Applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, being Appeal No. RCA0028/09/HC/KIG, sought to intervene. in which the Attorney Nevertheless, the Attorney General's General application to intervene was dismissed on the ground that he was a third party in the case. 13.The Applicant filed Attorney General, application No. RADO115/09/HC/KID claiming that the police had confiscated order to force him to pay a fine to ATRACO. against the his minibus in On 7 October 2011, the court dismissed the application for lack of merit. 14.0n 4 November 2011, the Applicant filed an appeal for review before the Supreme Articles Court, 182 Commercial basing his appeal and 184 of Law and Administrative No. on the violation 18/2004 Procedures of 20 in of the provisions of June 2004 on Civil, Rwanda. The Supreme Court, by decision No. RC0063/12/PRE of 15 October 2012, dismissed the appeal.