prolongation of the procedure, which in the Commission’s view, led to a breach of equality before the law.19 105. In the present circumstances, the Commission finds that the Complainant has sufficiently proved his allegations of violation, to his disadvantage, of the principle of equality before the law in the case between him and Pharmakina Company. By denying the Complainant the same opportunity of presenting his arguments as was given to his opponent, the Supreme Court of the DRC placed the Complainant in a position of imbalance which violated the equality provided for in the domestic law and the provisions of the African Charter. In response to these allegations, the Respondent State failed to prove to the Commission that the imbalance suffered by the Complainant was justified by any necessity so compelling as to warrant the undermining of the Complainant’s rights. 106. Moreover, the Commission concludes that the principle of equality before the law under the provisions of Article 3 of the African Charter has not been adhered to. Violation of Articles 7 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (c) 107. Article 7 (1) of the African Charter states that: “Everyone has the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: a) the right to appeal to competent national organs against acts of violation of his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force; b) (…); c) the right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice; d) (…)”. 108. A point of contention brought by the Complainant before the Commission relates to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the DRC to hear the case between him and Pharmakina Company. The general idea of guaranteeing a fair trial, as laid out in the relevant provisions of Article 7 referred to above, highlights two kinds of requirements: a court that is accessible and appropriate, as well as a court that is competent and properly constituted. 19 Communication 204/97 (2001) AHRLR 51 (HRC 2001) para 40. 20