Community Court of Justice. 35. In the instant case, the act of instituting proceedings was done before the national authority that is designated by the domestic law of Côte d'Ivoire to represent the State in court proceedings; it was the said national authority that filed a Memorial in Defence dated 9 April 2009, which was received at the Registry on 16th April, 2009. It follows therefore that, without having recourse to the provisions of Article 33(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the procedure followed before the Court, in the instant case, is legally founded, and the case was properly brought before the Court. 36. Consequently, the Court dismisses the objection made in regard to this last plea-in-law and declares that the case was properly filed before it and that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. Analysis of the Court Concerning Pleas on the Merits of the Case 37. The Applicant cited two violations of rights guaranteed him by international texts, notably Articles 7 × All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. and 23(3) × Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Applicant considered that the Defendant State has violated, on one hand, his right to equal remuneration and on the other hand, the principle of equality of all citizens before the law. As to Violation of the Right to Equal Remuneration 38. The Applicant asserted that in Côte invoke, the practice was adopted to mobilise contribution from rural areas, particularly from the cocoa- coffee sector, through the instruments of the DUS system (Single Exit Right) and registration taxation, for the purposes of increasing yield from the cadastral survey of rural areas. The Applicant contended that this mobilisation was carried out through exorbitant fiscal policies, which deprived the cocoa and coffee producers of the revenue they were entitled to, and finally eroded the purchasing power of the producers. That by so doing, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire has violated the provisions of Article 23(3) × Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides that: "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection". 39. The Defendant State averred, in reply, that the alleged injustice claimed by the Applicant reposes on Ivorian laws, rules and regulations or on its administrative decisions on taxation in the cocoa and coffee sector, and as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Applicant's request. 40. For the Defendant State, the Court cannot examine the legality of such legal instruments of the civil law of Côte d'Ivoire, namely its taxation law in respect of levies imposed on coffee and cocoa. 41. The Court cannot agree with such a stance, which tends to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Court, human rights violation which may occur in any sector governed by national law, be it on taxation law or otherwise. 42. Indeed, if international instruments relating to human rights authorise States to amend, in certain circumstances, rights and freedoms they have pledged to guarantee, international bodies like this Honourable Court do acknowledge their right to examine the legitimacy of the legal stance adopted by the States and their proportionality with the aims and objectives of guaranteed rights. 43. Such monitoring is intended to ensure that States, while employing the margin of freedom accorded them to amend rights through the adoption of national laws, do not end up emptying those rights or freedoms of the very essence of their meaning. To this end, the United Nations Committee on Human 7