retroactivity of criminal law during the introduction by the State of Senegal to new provisions in its Constitution. 35. But since the right of Appeal analyzed the right of an individual can apply to a court for a declaration or a right to punish the violation of a right. This right to effective remedy is different from the limited constitutional remedy reserved by the laws of a State to a number of individuals to establish the unconstitutionality of one or more laws. 36. Hissein Mr. Habré can not claim the right to effective remedy as provided for in international instruments protecting human rights to require the State of Senegal made available to the control of constitutionality of a law then well as texts Senegalese permit to any individual. 37. What any event Mr. Hissein Habre offers no concrete evidence of violations of the right to effective remedy in that it belongs v. State within its functioning to predict whether to grant or does not give an individual the constitutionality of a statute by action. The simple fact of not having foreseen this possibility does not imply the absence of the right to an effective remedy. 38. The Court believes that the alleged deprivation by Hissein Habre of not being able to benefit from the possibility of constitutional law which he believes is the source of the violation of his rights, not can be regarded as the right to effective remedy. The right to effective remedy as contemplated by the Complainant can not succeed in this action and the Court rejects this claim. d) The violation related to the separation of powers and independence of justice. 39. Mr. Hissein Habre believes that constitutional and legislative reforms undertaken by the government of Senegal is an interference by the executive and