headquarters at Abidjan, Cocody Plateaux, Vallons 28 BP 398 Abidjan 28, represented by Mr. Zahi Monboni Bonfils, the President of the said Association". 16. From the content of the text cited above, the Court notes the following: - The name of the association (National Co-ordinating Group of Departmental Representatives of the Cocoa-Coffee Sector (CNDD); - The legal basis of its creation (Ivorian Law No. 60-315 of 21 September 1960); - The type of association (non-profit making Association); - The location of its headquarters (Abidjan, Cocody II Plateaux, Vallons 28); - The postal address of the association (BP 398 Abidjan 28); - The surname and forenames of the legal representative of the association (Mr. Zahi Monboni Bonfils). 17. The points thus singled out establish a mere existence and a legal status of the association, which may however be contested by any person having serious doubts thereon. Moreover, the Court states that if in criminal matters, the burden of proof in regard to presumption of innocence lies on the accused, in civil matters, good faith is presumed and the onus is therefore on the party contesting any claim to provide evidence to the contrary. 18. In the instant case, it is therefore up to the party objecting to the legal status of the National Co-ordinating Group of Departmental Representatives of the Cocoa-Coffee Sector to bring evidence, either on the non-existence of the said association or on the claim that within the terms of the above-cited law, the said association does not possess the legal status alleged. In demanding that the Applicant evince its existence and legal status, the Defendant attempts to reverse the burden of proof. 19. Consequently, in the absence of contrary evidence, the Court considers the indications contained in the Application as evidence establishing the proof of existence of the National Co-ordinating Group of Departmental Representatives of the Cocoa-Coffee Sector as an association created in accordance with the law of Côte d'Ivoire and having a legal status. The objection regarding defect in the Applicant's legal status therefore fails. As to the objection regarding the status of the Applicant 20. The Defendant further maintained that even if the Applicant existed, it possessed neither the status nor the capacity to bring a case before the Court. 21. The issue of existence of the Applicant Association having been resolved, what remains to be considered is whether a legal person may file a case before the Court in relation to a human rights issue; on this point, the Applicant contended that in the terms of the texts relating to the Court, any person may bring a case before the Court for human rights violation and that there was no ground for differentiating between a legal person and a natural person. It contended that according to a general principle of law, there is no point in making a distinction where the law does not do so. 22. To determine who may bring cases before the Court, it is appropriate to refer to the provisions of Article 10(d) × d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: i. Not be anonymous; nor ii. Be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication; [sic]* of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, which provide that "Access to the Court is open to ... individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: (i) not be anonymous; (ii) nor be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication". 3