of judges that the decisions of the HJC are not subject to a remedy, except in cases of violation of human rights and public freedoms, in which case the remedy is pursued before the Constitutional Court. 133. The Court notes, however, that notwithstanding that judges have a remedy only in cases of violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms, it considers that a decision in this ambit by the Constitutional Court in favour of judges may ultimately have an impact on the decision taken by the HJC so much so that it amends the said decision. 134. The Court notes in this respect that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are enforceable and are binding on public authorities, on all civil, military and judicial authorities and on all natural or legal persons who must diligently comply.37 135. The Court therefore considers that judges have an effective remedy as regards sanctions pronounced against them by the HJC. 136. In the light of all the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1) of the Charter read together with Article 2(3)(a) of the ICCPR, Article 1(h) of the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Article 8 of the UDHR. F. On the alleged violations of the right to independent candidacy, and to the composition of the COS-LEPI 137. The Applicant argues that Article 153-138 of the amended Constitution, prohibits any citizen of the Respondent State who is not a member of a political party or who is not running on the ticket of a political party from 37 38 Article 20(2)(3) of Law No.2022-09 of 27 June 2022. Resulting from the constitutional amendment of 7 November 2019. 37