of continued illicit behavior, the statute of limitation only begins to run from the time when such unlawful conduct or omission ceases. The European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission have generated the largest existing body of jurisprudence on continued violations. Such jurisprudence affirms that the particular nature of continuing violations of jus cogens norms requires an exception to the otherwise enforceable period of repose. In MC DAID V. TURKEY, ECHR (1996), the Commission recalls that the concept of a ‘continuing situation’ refers to a state of affairs which operates by continuous activities by or on the part of the state to render the applicants victims. From the Plaintiffs application, it is clear that the documents are still in the possession of the Defendant, who have not denied being in possession but rather maintain that the action is inadmissible being filed three (3) years after the cause of action arose. This on its own does not amount to a rebuttal but an implied admission of being in possession of the property in issue. In view of the foregoing, it is obvious that the provisions of Article 9 (3) of the Supplementary Protocol is not applicable to this case and the Plaintiff’s application is admissible. SUBSTANTIVE APPLICATION WHETHER FROM THE TOTALITY OF FACTS PUT FORWARD, THE DEFENDANTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS UNDER THE AFRICAN CHARTER. 18