189. The Commission notes that the title deed is an administrative act likely to be brought before the Judge and can constitute the object of an appeal against abuse of power if it has been fraudulently established other than as a result of a flaw which happened during the registration procedure. 190. The right to be heard requires that the Complainant has unfettered access to a court having jurisdiction to hear his case. It also requires that the matter be brought before a court having jurisdiction to hear the case. A competent court to hear a case in law is so empowered by the law. 191. The Commission provided clarification on Article 7 in the Kenneth Good vs. Republic of Botswana case, in which it asserted that the right to be heard requires that the Complainant should enjoy unrestricted access to a court of competent jurisdiction to have his case heard 35 . 192. The Commission believes that when the authorities put impediments in the way to prevent victims from having access to competent courts, they deprive victims of their right to have their case heard. 193. In the case of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum vs. Zimbabwe 36 , the Commission noted that the protection afforded by Article 7 is not limited to the protection of the rights of persons arrested and detained but it includes the right of everyone to have access to relevant judicial bodies with jurisdiction to hear their case and grant them adequate compensation. 194. The Commission regrets that after having taken the right decision to reopen the proceedings, the Supreme Court reversed its decision by prohibiting the NOCA party from presenting its defence and rejecting the resumption of proceedings by the Noca succession decided by itself and the third-party opposition. 195. The Commission believes that though the Respondent State noted that the second appeal which prompted the second referral was fraudulent, the Supreme Court should not have rejected the pursuance of the lawsuit, the only remedy available to the victim to claim his building. 196. The Commission also believes that in such circumstances, if the Court thought it had erred in allowing the NOCA party to pursue the lawsuit whereas there was an existing ruling that had acquired the force of a judgement delivered, and also that the second appeal was granted on the basis of a fraudulent act, it was obliged to re-open the proceedings in order to notify the Noca party about the facts. 197. The Commission believes that the final judgment which rejected an obligation to reopen the proceedings to hear the position of Dino Noca therefore deprived him of the right to have his case heard. 198. The Commission moreover believes that the Supreme Court did not offer the basic procedural safeguards. Its decision cannot have legitimacy when both sides have not been heard with due respect for the principle of equality of arms, which would have allowed the parties to discuss the issue of continuing with the proceedings. 199. In such circumstances, the Commission can only endorse the claims of the Complainant according to which the decision of the Supreme Court to exclude the NOCA party from the proceedings without giving him the opportunity to present his defence and without examining the consequences of such action on his request does not comply with the requirements of the African Charter and the general principles of law. 200. The Commission considers that the argument advanced by the Respondent State to justify the position taken by its own courts is inconsistent with the obligations of the Respondent State to comply with Article 7 of the Charter. 201. The Complainant also alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Charter which deals with the right to equal protection of the law and equality before the law. For the parties to a case, these rights entail access to equal opportunity in the preparation and presentation of their arguments. In other words, they must be able to defend their case before the court on an equal footing. 202. In the Communication Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa vs. Republic of Zimbabwe 37 ,the African Commission relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka38 , in which Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States of America argued that "equal protection by law refers to the right of everyone to have equal access to courts of justice and to be treated the same way by the courts, both for procedures and for the essence of the law. It is akin to the right to due process of law, but applies in particular to equal treatment as an element of fundamental equity". 203. The Commission considers that this attitude of the Supreme Court is in contradiction with the principles of the right to equality before the law and the right to defence and thus infringes Articles 3 and 7. 1.c of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights in the sense that firstly the succession of Noca Lucio represented by its legal liquidator Mr. Dino Noca could not present its defence and secondly the principle of equality of litigants was not respected since only the defence of the opposing party, in this case Mr Kafwa, was taken into account. 15