0c0:t2s requests do not create a legally binding obligation on the Respondent State. As a party to thc Covenant. the Respondent State must do its utmost to stop the violation. 24. On the contrary, a court decision "settles" the case, that is, it closes the hearing. [t settles thc disputc by stating the law as it is and, thus, places on the Respondent State an absolute obligation which produces a specific result, and not a best efforts obligation. 25. Sinoe thc Court held that the Application was admissible because it was filed within a reasonable time, it should have made an analysis ol the notion o1'settlement for its finding that the Application is admissiblc and. then, proceeded to consider the merits of the case. 26. 'l'hus, the one and only reason for the inadmissibility of'the Application arises from the Applicant's non-observance of the reasonable time to file his Application and not from the HRC's setllement of thc ease. 27. t laving demonstraled extreme flexibility with respect to the requirement of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(6) of the llules on reasonable time, the Court should also have tbund the Application admissible pursuant to Article 56(7) of the Charter and Rule 40(7) of the Rules, since the Views of HRC did not amount to a settlement of the case. s$ HU M N Arusha. 28 March 2019 lvo E.+ Reg, slf Judge Rafafl Ben Achour q* oRorr 5 $t 6