the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights has been judged prejudicial to fundamental human rights by numerous courts whose competence and respectability have been unanimously recognised. 62. Furthermore, the Complainant observes that the various peace negotiations on the Ivorian crisis have, after the MIDH, tackled the issue and recommended the modification of Article 26 of the Law 98rd th 750 of 23 December 1998. The same is true for the Marcoussis Accords of 24 January 2003, in their Item IV – land property system, paragraph 2 . 63. The Complainant all the same accepts that, like the Government of Côte d’Ivoire, following the Marcoussis Accords, the National Assembly of Côte d’Ivoire had passed a new Law No. 2004-412 th rd dated 14 August 2004 on the amendment of Article 26 of the Law No. 98-750 of 23 December 1998 and relative to rural land ownership. 64. The Complainant thus feels that it has scored a victory and requests the African Commission to mention this credit in its decision on the merits. Debate on the need to pursue consideration of the merits or otherwise 65. The Commission takes note of the request from the Respondent Party to declare the communication submitted by the MIDH as groundless, due to the fact that the provisions of Article 26 of the Law 98-750 being challenged by the Complainant had been modified by the new Law 2004-412 and that in consequence this modification gives the plaintiff satisfaction. 66. The Commission notes with interest the arguments raised by the Ivorian State to justify its request for declaring the communication groundless and for closing the case, notably the principle of topicality which requires that all judicial or administrative bodies assess the facts of a case in the state in which they are on the day of its ruling. 67. The Commission further notes that the Ivorian State, in its arguments on the merits, alludes to the former jurisprudence of the Commission (notably 66/92 Lawyers Committee for Human Rights vs. Tanzania, 22/88 International Pen vs. Burkina Faso and 16/88 Cultural Committee for Democracy in Benin vs. Benin. The Commission observes that the Respondent Party relies mainly on this said jurisprudence to base its request for the communication to be pronounced groundless and for the closure of the case. 68. The Commission considers, furthermore, that the Complainant, in spite of the fact that it does not bring any new arguments following the conclusions drawn on the merits by the Ivorian Government, does not for all that renounce its suit before the Commission and does not withdraw its Complaint. Better still, the Complainant is asking the Commission to recognise, on making its decision, its credit for having been the first organisation to have drawn attention on the prejudicial nature of the Article 26 of the Law 98-750 on rural landownership to human rights. 69. The Commission moreover notes the concern expressed by the Complainant to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the Law 2004-412 amending Article 26 of the Law, and above all, acquisition of help in obtaining compensation for the prejudices suffered by numerous rd populations for six (6) years during which the Law No. 98-750 of the 23 December had remained in force. 70. From the preceding arguments submitted by the two parties, the Commission considers it its responsibility to determine whether or not to pursue the consideration of the merits of the present communication. View of the Commission on the need to pursue consideration of the merits or otherwise 71. The Commission considers that the communications 66/92, 22/88 and 16/88 invoked by the Respondent Party to justify its request to the Commission to declare the communication groundless and to close the case, should be assessed on a case by case basis and can in no way constitute a constant jurisprudence of the Commission. 72. Relying on its jurisprudence, the Commission has always dealt with the communications by ruling on the alleged facts at the time of the presentation of the communication (see 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93: Organisation mondiale contre la torture and Association internationale des juristes démocrates, Commission internationale des juristes, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme / Rwanda). This