69. In this respect, the Court finds it relevant to refer to the position of the European Court of Human Rights, which noted that “the evolution of jurisprudence does not, in itself, conflict with the proper administration of justice, since to assert the contrary would be to fail to maintain a dynamic and evolving approach, which would impede any reform or improvement”.17 70. In the present case, the Court notes that, although the Supreme Court’s rulings referenced by the Applicants had the effect of regularising the situation of their colleagues, it is not disputed that the same court subsequently reversed its jurisprudence. Indeed, the Supreme Court premised the reversal of its precedent on the grounds that “it is a general principle of the Civil Service Act that a civil servant may not benefit from a right obtained by another person unlawfully; and that the person who claims to have a right is obliged to prove it”. 71. The Court observes that in its ruling, the Supreme Court found that “the applicants underwent training to obtain a Master’s degree without approval from the hierarchical authority, in accordance with Article 125 of Law No. 10-034 of 12 July 2010 on the status of national police officers”. It is therefore based on the above that the Supreme Court, in its Judgment No. 186 of 7 April 2016, dismissed the Applicants’ request for regularisation. 72. The Court notes that the Applicants do not contest the fact that they obtained their qualifications after the date of entry into force of the decree of 6 February 2006, and neither do they contest the fact that they did not obtain prior authorization from their hierarchical superiors. Insofar as the Supreme Court proceeded, without further consideration, to a different interpretation of the applicable law, and gave reasons for this reversal, the Court considers that the Supreme Court is fully entitled to develop its jurisprudence. This Court therefore finds that the Applicants were not 17 Micallef v. Malta, Application No. 17056/06, judgment of 15 October 2009, § 51. See also Boubacar Sissoko and 74 Others v. Republic of Mali (merits and reparations) (25 September 2020) 4 AfCLR 641, § 73. Tiékoro Sangaré and Others v. Republic of Mali, AfCHPR, Application No. 007/2019, judgment of 23 June 2022 (merits), § 72. 16