A. Alleged violation of the right to bring complaints before competent national courts 60. The Applicants argue that it is clear that no appeal is possible before domestic courts because if the Supreme Court had wanted to apply the law, it would have referred the case and the parties to a differently constituted Court of Appeal. According to the Applicants, this argument is confirmed by the Respondent State’s contention that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of domestic courts. 61. The Respondent State submits that the Applicants have indeed exercised their right to seize the national courts by taking their matter through the trial court (Bamako Labour Court), the Bamako Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The Respondent State points out that their former employer was ordered by the Supreme Court to pay entitlements and damages to other workers involved in similar disputes. 62. Over and above all that, the Respondent State argues that the Applicants cannot ignore the fact that the Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, has oversight over the application of the law by the lower courts which cannot have a different case law other than the one developed by the Supreme Court. On the contrary, it is for the lower courts to align themselves with and comply with the jurisprudence of the Superior Court. 63. The Respondent State, therefore, concludes that the Application should be declared unfounded and the Applicants’ case be dismissed accordingly. *** 64. The Court notes that under Article 7(1) of the Charter: “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force…” 15