55. Consequently, the Commission does not find any grounds upon which the objection that the matter has been politicised can be sustained. Objection on the Grounds that the decision of the Commission is not sound in law 56. The Commission notes that the Respondent State’s objection is grounded upon the principle of res judicata, namely that the Commission already pronounced itself on the matter hence the admission of the Communication violated Article 56 (7) of the Charter. The Respondent State submits that the issues raised in the present Communication were already settled by the Commission in Communication 275/05 – Article 19 v Eritrea. 57. The rule of res judicata can best be understood as follows; that no court should be able to try any case in which the subject matter of the new case is substantially similar to a decided case involving the same parties (or some of them) in a court with the same competencies as the one that previously tried the case. Three things are critical in assessing whether a matter fits the res judicata test. One, the matter must be “directly and substantially” similar in both cases. Two, the parties in both cases must be the same or some of the parties in the new case must be a part of the previous claim. Three, the matter must have been finalised in the previous case. All three conditions need to be satisfied in order to conclude that a matter is res judicata. In Sudan Human Rights Organisation & Sudan and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v The Sudan8, the Commission stated that ‘a matter shall be considered settled within the context of Article 56 (7) of the African Charter, if it was settled by any of the UN human rights treaty bodies or any other international adjudication mechanism, with a human rights mandate. This Commission is one such adjudication body with a human rights mandate. 58. With regard to the identity of the parties, the Complainant in this particular case was one of the individuals on whose behalf proceedings were initiated before this Commission in Communication 275/03 – Article 19 v Eritrea. 9 59. In respect of the substance of the two cases, the Commission notes that the provisions of the Charter alleged to have been violated and the relief sought by the Complainant in 8 Communications 279/03, 296/05 – Sudan Human Rights Organization & Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions v Sudan, (2010) ACHPR 28th Activity Report, para 104. 9 See Article 19 v Eritrea, para 3.