jurisprudence had been confirmed by the more recent decisions relating to 222/98 and 229/98 Law Office of Ghazi Suleiman / Sudan. 73. The Commission takes good note of the amendments to the Article 26 introduced by the new Law 2004-412 and which are geared towards better guaranteeing the right to property, but wishes to clarify that these new legislative provisions do not wipe out the violations caused by the application of the former Law 98-750 which produced effects for six (6) years, and therefore it was beholden, by virtue of its mandate of protection, to rule on Communication 262/2002. 74. The Commission thereby concludes that, even if the law had been amended since then, this change does not automatically draw a decision from the Commission to close the case. In consequence, the Commission decides to pursue consideration of the merits of Communication 262/2002 submitted by the MIDH against the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. Consideration of the Merits: Provisions of the Charter alleged to have been violated 75. The Complainant alleges the violation of Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which stipulates that: [ # “Every individual shall be entitled to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised and guaranteed in the present Charter without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortune, birth or other status”. #] 76. The Complainant also alleges the violation of 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which stipulates that: “The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and this in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws” . 77. The Commission notes that in its observations on the merits, the Government of Côte d’Ivoire does not dispute the violations of Articles 2 and 14 of the African Charter by the Article 26 of the Law 98-750 on rural land ownership. On the contrary, it simply observes that its effects are limited as “the number of individuals concerned is from 112 of which 40 are companies and 112 physical persons, and that among these, there is a very small minority of Africans”. 78. As a result, the Commission considers that the provisions of Article 26 of the Law 98-750 are in violation of Articles 2 and14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and notes that the argument that its effects are said to be limited to a certain number of persons and only concerns a very small minority of Africans is irrelevant from the legal point of view and therefore cannot stand. On the other hand, such an interpretation confirms the violation of Article 2 of the African Charter which guarantees the enjoyment of rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind such as race, ethnic group, colour, sex, language, religion, political or any other opinion, national or social origin, fortune, birth or other status. Furthermore, the Commission considers that the application of Article 26, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law 98-750 would give rise to the expropriation of their land from a category of the population, on the sole basis of their origin; whereas, it observes that the Ivorian Government, in its remarks on the merits, does not advance any argument linked to the “public need” or to “the general interest of the community” which could exceptionally justify a violation to the right to property as guaranteed by the Charter, specifically in its Article 14. Holding For these reasons, the African Commission Observes that the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire is in violation of the provisions of Articles 2 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. rd Observes that, even if Article 26 of the Law 98-750 of 23 December 1998 had been amended by the th Law 2004-412 of the 14 August 2004, it has already shown its effects during the six (6) years of its application; Takes note of the current reconciliation process and of the ongoing negotiations in Cote d’Ivoire; Recommends to the Government of Côte d’Ivoire to ensure the effective application of the provisions