jointly with Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, insofar as its domestic courts failed to deliver in open court Judgment No. 31528 of 12 March 2013 of the Court of Appeal of Tunis and Judgment No. 45501/46360 of 4 December 2017 of the Cassation Court. B. Alleged violation of the right to property 109. The Applicant alleges that his right to property was violated insofar as domestic courts erroneously applied the explicit and clear internal rules of the law which entitled him to be the sole participant in the re-auction. * 110. The Respondent State submits that the allegation is baseless. It argues that the process of a public auction sale is open to the public and to everyone looking to own the property being auctioned. It further elaborates that when the property that is the subject of the present case was offered for sale by public auction, another bidder competed with the Applicant, namely AEREC. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the said company thus had equal opportunity to bid for the property. 111. The Respondent State also contends that the Applicant did not at any time own property for it to be returned to him. *** 112. Article 14 of the Charter states: “[t]he right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws”. 113. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that the right to property as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Charter includes the right to use one’s property (usus), 25