266 Mizan Law Review Vol. 6 No.2, December 2012 decided by subregional courts before the African Commission or Court would violate the prohibition of double jeopardy. 3.4. Res judicata Effect of Subregional Courts’ Decisions Prohibition of double jeopardy is closely related to the principle of res judicata. The African Commission held that the principle of double jeopardy is connected with ‘the recognition of the fundamental res judicata status of judgments issued by international and regional tribunals and/or institutions such as the African Commission.’163 Res judicata can be defined as: “[a]n affirmative defense barring the same parties from litigating a second lawsuit on the same claim, or any other claim arising from the same transaction or series of transactions and that could have been — but was not — raised in the first suit”. 164 According to the African Commission, res judicata ‘is the principle that a final judgment of a competent court/tribunal is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action.’165 It implies that ‘decision in the circumstances is final, binding and without appeal.’166 Certain grounds have been advanced to justify res judicata161 First, res judicata serves public interest because the general public interest requires ending ‘disputes that have already been litigated by establishing the finality of judicial decisions.’168 Secondly, it is used as ‘a means to reduce controversies and disputes and to promote stability.’169 Thirdly, it saves courts’ time as it ensures ‘the economic efficiency of the courts and the speedy termination of controversies.’110 The ICJ considered the principle of res judicata in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case.111 163Ibid. 164Garner, supra note 151, p. 1052. 165Ibid, para 52. 166 Malcolm N Shaw (2005), International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 95. 161Yuval Sinai (2011), ‘Reconsidering Res Judicata: A Comparative Perspective’ Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law 353, Vol. 21, p.360. 168Ibid. 169Ibid, at 362. 110Ibid; Edward W. Cleary (1948), ‘Res Judicata Reexamined’ The Yale Law Journal 339, Vol. 51 No. 3, p. 344. 111 Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) Judgment of 26 February 2001, International Court of Justice: Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, available at <http://www.icjcij.org/docket/files/91/13685.pdf> (accessed on 13 February 2013).