Alleged violation of Articles 3 and 7.1c 174. The Complainant alleged that the decision taken by the Supreme Court in Judgment RC029/TSR prohibiting the NOCA party from presenting its defence and the decision by the latter Court rejecting the resumption of proceedings by the Noca succession and the third-party opposition violated the principle of Articles 3 and 7.1c of the Charter. 175. Article 3 stipulates that: "Every individual shall be equal before the law. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law". 176. Article 7.1c for its part provides that "Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This right includes the right to defence and the right to be defended by counsel of one's choice". 177. The Complainant alleges that the disputed decision was motivated in these terms: "regarding the third-party opposition and the pursuance of the suit, the Court rules that the Judgement RC029/TSR having been declared inadmissible, the joint appeal of 3rd May 1995 as emanating from Mr. NOCA Lucio who passed away on the 27th May 1992, the issue is definitively settled since the Judgement RAC/001 of 29 December 1994 of the Kinshasa/Matete Appeals Court which had acquired competence of the case had irrevocably judged against the NOCA Lucio successors. Consequently, the pursuance of the suit should not have been prescribed".32 178. In this communication, the victim complained of not having had the opportunity to present his defence. After the death of Mr. Lucio NOCA, biological father of Dino NOCA, the Supreme Court found it necessary to call the Noca succession to the trial to allow him to present his defence so that his rights in the disputed property are protected in the same way as those claimed by Mr. Kafwa on the same property. 179. The Complainant emphasizes that by Judgment No. RCR/C 019 of 14 July 2000, the Supreme Court summoned the entitled beneficiaries of the late NOCA to continue the proceedings. 180. Moreover, the Complainant adds that the pursuance of this lawsuit was decided on the following grounds: "since Mr. NOCA's successors in title were not informed of the current proceedings, they cannot be presumed to have withdrawn from pursuing the lawsuit". 181. The Complainant argues that despite his determination to pursue the proceedings, the Supreme Court did not give him that opportunity because it reversed its decision on the continuation of the lawsuit, by nullifying it for the reason that the issue is definitively settled since the Judgement RAC/001 of 29 December 1994 of the Kinshasa/Matete Appeals Court which had acquired competence of the case had irrevocably judged against the NOCA Lucio successors. 182. The Complainant alleges that the right to equality before the courts guaranteed by the Charter was violated by the Supreme Court, given that only the arguments of Mr Kafwa, the other party, were considered as opposed to those of Mr Noca who was refused from pursuing the case. 183. The Respondent State states for its part that the approach of the Supreme Court whose reasoning is impeccable in law can in no way be regarded as a violation of Article 7 of the Charter. 184. For the Respondent State, the referral of the case to the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court for the determination of the merits was only the consequence of the second appeal, which having been deemed to have grounds by the Supreme Court, had recognized a second referral; and it was only natural for it to be invalidated in respect of Mr. NOCA Lucio, since it became clear before the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court that the second appeal which necessitated the second referral was fraudulent given that it was filed on 3rd May,1995 on behalf of Mr. NOCA Lucio who passed away on 27 May 1992. 185. The Commission recalls that though the complainants decided to pursue the lawsuit, they only used the opportunity offered them by the Congolese State which had observed many irregularities in the administration of justice in the Noca case. 186. The right to a fair hearing is based on key elements including in particular the principle of equality of arms for the parties to the case, whether administrative, civil, criminal or military33 , the opportunity to properly prepare the defence, to present arguments and evidence and to respond to the arguments and evidence of the prosecution or the defendant 34 . 187. Pursuant to Article 7.1.c of the Charter, anyone who feels that his rights have been violated has the right to bring his case before the relevant national courts. Thus, the position or status of the victim or those of the alleged perpetrator do not matter. This means that any person, whose rights have been violated, including by persons acting in their official capacity, should be entitled to an effective remedy before a competent and impartial judicial body and enjoy the right to have his case heard without any discrimination. 188. The States Parties to the African Charter thus have a duty to ensure that the judicial organs are accessible to all and that all parties have the opportunity to present their defence in a fair manner. 14