00 024I 1. We agree with the Majority Judgment, of which we are both part, in all respects that the Application, as filed by Mr. Jean-Claude Roger Gombert against the Republic of C6te d'lvoire, is inadmissible on the grounds that the dispute has been "settled" within the meaning of Article 56 (7) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The provision prescribes that an Application filed before the Court should "not deal with cases which have been settled ...in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter." 2. We have, however, felt the need to make our position known with regard to the issue of the identity of the Applicant and his company AGRILAND which pursuant to Article 56 (1) or Rule 40 (1) of the Rules is an important admissibility criterion. This is an issue that arose severaltimes in the Judgment. 3. We are of the opinion that the Court should have addressed the issue at the onset and given an elaborate explanation as to why the Applicant and AGRILAND are deemed to be the same person for the purposes of the Application. Though the Applicant and the company are two separate persons, the Court opted to lift the corporate veil of AGRILAND and take the two as one without adequately expatiating on how it arrived at this conclusion. ln our considered view, the justifications the Court gave to support its positions are insufficient for the following reasons. 4. First, the Court only mentioned the fact that the Applicant and his company, AGRILANDl, are two different personalities at a later stage in the judgment. Given the importance of clearly identifying the identity of the Parties for the Court's assessment of the Application, this exercise should have been made and clearly spelt out at earlier, at least, at admissibility stage (paragraphs. 21-22). 5. Secondly, there are instances where the Court assumed that the Applicant was the one who filed the case before the ECOWAS Court of Justice although it is patently his company, clear from the record that he did not and that it was rather filed AGRILAND. Had the Court clarified this matter earlier, there would not have been such confusion as to the true identity of the Applicant. by 6. Lastly, the issue of identity of Parties is something, which has been dealt with by other international courts in similar cases. The Court's reticence to do the same and Application No. 038/2016. Judgment o'12210312018, Jean-Claude Roger Gombeft v. Republic of d'lvoire, para.46.