prison of the Applicant and her brother, adjourned proceedings, pending the determination of the civil proceedings. 48. In this wise, is there any basis for Hadijatou Mani Koraou, who has already seised the domestic courts, to bring her case before the Court of Justice of ECOWAS, whereas the said national courts have not exhausted their proceedings on the case? 49. In the terms of the provisions of Article 10 d) × Access to the Court is open to the following: d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 relating to the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS: "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; nor ii) be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication" It therefore follows that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is not applicable before the Court. 50. These provisions are essentially intended to prevent individuals from abusing the possibilities offered them for seeking redress in the courts, and to avoid the same case being handled by several bodies at the same time. See Cohen Jonathan, European Convention of the Safeguard of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Economica, Paris, 1989, page 143, where it is rightly stated that this condition was expressly posed "to exclude the accumulation of international proceedings" 51. At the source of this condition, provided for in all the international mechanisms of examining and settling cases, can be found the idea of avoiding a situation whereby one and the same case is brought before several international bodies (Cf. Article 35 (2) b × The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that (b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information. of the European Convention of the Safeguard of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 56 (7) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 46 (c) × 1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: c. that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement; of the American Convention of Human Rights, Article 5 (2) × 2. The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that: (a) The same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; (b) The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged. a of the First Optional Protocol relating to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). 52. But the interpretation of this rule has revealed, as Stefan Trechsel points out, in Die europäische Menschenrechts-konvention ihr Schutz der persönlichen Freiheit und die schweizerischen Strafprozessrechte, Stämpfli, Bern, 1974, p.125, that it "is not limited to the 'non bis in idem', but equally covers the situation of pendency of cases, since it is sufficient for a case to have been brought, in substance, before another international court. It is therefore a question of avoiding the parallelism of various international proceedings, on one hand, and on the other hand, to avoid conflict between various international courts; indeed, there is no order of hierarchy between such international courts and it follows that none among them should be competent to revise, indeed, the decision of another international court." 53. Consequently, by providing for Article 10 (d) ii × Access to the Court is open to the following: d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: ii. Be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication; [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol in the manner it did, the Community lawmaker of ECOWAS intended to remain within the strict confines of what international practice has deemed appropriate to abide by. It is therefore not the duty of the instant Court to add to the Supplementary Protocol conditions which have not been provided for by the texts. Ultimately, and for all these reasons, the Objection raised by the Defendant cannot thrive. 6