o,ooulo 15.This major factor explains, in part, why the Applicant resorted to some kind of "foreign shopping", so as to bring his case before ( many > international human rights courts. The application was brought before the Court on 26 May 2017, after the Committee had given its decision on 27 March 2014. ln conformity with its jurisprudence, whereby reasonable delay is determined on a case-by-case basis and according to the law governing the matter,'o it allowed it. lt should have examined it fully, rather than find it inadmissible. 16.There is a third reason. The Court seems to give the Respondent State "more than its due." The irregularities noted by the Committee persist. The Respondent State should have been ordered by this new tribunal to comply with the norms of international human rights law.11 According to the law as it is, the operative part of the Committee's judgment still remains, in the instant case, the applicable law. As pointed out by Fatsa Ouguergouzl2 in her commentary on Article 56(7), this provision does not, in any manner whatsoever, prohibit the operation ol lis alibi pendens; international human rights judges may be called upon, each one in accordance with their competence, to complement each other. On the one hand, this case would enable this Court to lay down its judicial opinion on the non bis id idem rule and the basis thereof, as framed in Article 56(7) and, on the other hand, it would have been an opportunity for the Court to make a major judicial contribution to < respect for the right to life > which, as the lnternational Court of Justice stated, "is a provision that cannot be derogated from."13 ll. The decision taken is a setback for the development of the law 'o AfCHpR, Minani Evarist v. Tanzania,2l September 2018: ln Beneficiaries of lale Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina-Faso, the Court stated as follows: " ......the reasonableness of the timeline for referrals to it depends on the circumstances of each case and must be assessed on case-by-case basrs", para 51. "ECHR, Margus v. Croatia,27 May 2014,lA State cannot refuse to execute an orderof the Courton t'Ouguergouz (F.1, The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Protocol relating thereto on the establishment of an African Coutt, Article by article Commentary, Ed. Economica, 2011, grounds of the principle ol non bis in ideml. pp. 1024 and following. '3 Legality of the Threat Rep. 1996, p. 226 925. or [Jse of Nuclear Ll/eapons, Advisory Opinion, July 8, 1996, ICJ 6