property and real estate matters, a decision was taken to formally exclude NOCA's building from the category of abandoned buildings as per Order no1440/000207/82 of 20th September 1982. 133. The Complainant further indicates that two years after the annulment of the Order of 3rd September 1980, the President of the Republic issued Ordinance No. 84-026 of 2 February 1984 repealing the Ordinance relating to abandoned or undeveloped property and other assets acquired by the State under the law. 134. The Complainant argues that, in spite of these repeals, the Registrar of Land Titles took on the heavy responsibility of issuing to Mr. KAFWA the registration certificate for Mr. NOCA's building. 135. The Respondent State argues that following a land application by Mr. KAFWA, then State Prosecutor at the Bukavu High Court, the Registrar of property titles proposed he should be allocated the property formerly owned by Mr. NOCA, which was declared abandoned on 3rd September 1980 and allocated on the same day to a certain MATAKINA who, until the date of the proposal had not made any payment into the public treasury. 136. In its response, the Respondent State claimed that at the time the Registrar made the proposal, he was unaware that the 1980 Abandonment Order had been repealed by Order no 1440/000207/82 of 20 September 1982 19 . 137. The Commission notes that though it is true that the administration was unaware of the repeal and the opposition raised during the procedure for registration and issuance of the title deed and issued a title deed for a piece of land which already had a title deed, it means that the State failed in its obligation to protect the rights of foreigners living in its territory, and that the State could have demonstrated good faith by reinstating the rights of the victim. 138. In any case, the Commission notes that the Head of the Lands Department in the city of Bukavu received a copy of the annulment of the Order declaring the NOCA building as abandoned, given that he even requested the authentication of the document in his possession. This request was made through telephone message No. 00027/84 of 5 July 1984 and letter No. 1.440/000748 of the same 5 July 1984, from the Minister of Lands, then State Commissioner, confirming the repeal of Order No. 1.440/000152/80. 139. The Commission also notes that even though the Head of the Lands Department had requested authentication of the document, he did not wait for the aforementioned responses, but proceeded with the issuance of the registration certificate to Mr. Kafwa Kasongo. 140. The Commission deplores the lack of diligence and goodwill on the part of the Head of Division, who before the assignment of the Noca plot of land, could have waited for the response of the Minister of Lands in respect of the authenticity of the copy relating to the annulment of the Order declaring the building as abandoned property. 141. It is quite right that the Complainant cites jurisprudence according to which only the holder of a registration certificate can lay claim to the ownership of a building and the property is deemed to belong to him as long as the transfer of property ownership has not been made. 142. On the argument of the Respondent State that due to the lack of interest by the former owner to recover his property, the Commission believes that for the owner to entrust the management of his building to SONAS before leaving Zaire (now DRC) was a means for Mr. NOCA to maintain his property a link with his property which excludes lack of interest to recover his property as claimed by the Respondent State. 143. The Commission notes that the right to ownership embodies two key principles. The first is a general one which focuses on the principle of the right of ownership and the peaceful enjoyment of property. The second principle focuses on the possibility and condition of deprivation of the right to property 20 . Article 14 of the African Charter recognizes that States are authorized to violate it under certain circumstances, particularly, to control the use of the property in the public or general interest by administering laws which are deemed necessary towards that end. 144. In Communication 276/2003 Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council vs. Kenya (Endorois case), of May 2009, the Commission dealt at length with the right to ownership and established a two-pronged criterion which sets out that this right cannot be violated except "in the interest of the public or in the general interest of the community" and "in conformity with the provisions of the appropriate laws" 21 ; this latter aspect referring to domestic and international laws 22 . 145. At the same time, the Commission has indicated that the limitations to the right to property should be determined in the light of the principle of proportionality, meaning that interference in the right to property must be "proportional to a legitimate need, and should represent the least restrictive measure possible" 23 . That is not the case for the Communication under review. 11