23. Responding to the allegation of non- conformity with Rule 33(2) of the Rules of Court to provide an address for service at the seat of the Court, the Applicant, while not contesting the lapse, denies that it renders the application inadmissible. He argues that under Article 33(6) of the Rules of Court, only a Judge can declare an application inadmissible for want of compliance with Article 33(2) of the Rules of Court. It is therefore premature at this stage for the Respondent to seek to declare the application inadmissible. 24. In regard to the objection of non- conformity with Rule 28(3) of the Court, which requires the presentation of a qualifying certificate to practice in Senegal, the Applicant stated that his counsel though a lawyer registered with the Bar in Paris has the express authorization to practice abroad by the Lawyers’ Privilege Council in Paris while still a Member of the Bar in Paris. He states that the authorisation enables him to register and practice in Senegal with the Law Firm of Cabinet SCP M’baye Dieng & Associes, registered with the Bar in Dakar (Copy of the said authorization to practice abroad was annexed). 25. On the alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing, the Applicant restated the fact that he was never informed of the proceedings which led to the forced sale of his building to Mrs. Salimata Siama and that the right to a fair trial guarantees that no one should be judged without having been heard. 26. On the right to property, the Applicant states that it is undisputable that he is the owner of the building located at Fass Delorme, which he acquired on April 22, 1963. Since the building had never been alienated by him, it remains his exclusive property, and the sale judgment and the various court decisions that illegally and unfairly appropriated his property to a third party comes to naught. He concluded by 10