vii. Find that the Respondent State did not intervene in the settlement of the contractual dispute between the Applicant and his lawyers; viii. Find that the Respondent State did not cause the Applicant any harm; ix. Find that the Application does not seek to review the Respondent State’s obligations under international human rights legal instruments; x. Find that the Application does not relate to any violation by the Respondent State of its obligations under international human rights legal instruments; xi. Find that the Application was not filed after exhaustion of local remedies; xii. Find that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies; xiii. Find that the Applicant had avenues to bring an action before criminal courts if he disagreed with the police authorities as to whether or not his was a civil case; xiv. Find that the Applicant did not take any action to summon his adversaries before court; xv. Find that the Constitutional Court seized by the Applicant delivered two (2) judgments; xvi. Find that police officers returned to the Applicant the sums they held on the Applicant’s behalf; xvii. Find that the Respondent State is a third party to the contract between the Applicant and his driver; xviii. Find that the Respondent State did not commit any fault that could give rise to liability; xix. Find that the Respondent State is not responsible for the Applicant’s procedural choices; xx. Find that the case has nothing to do with the Applicant; xxi. Find that the Applicant affirms that he is not a direct victim; xxii. Accordingly, find the Application inadmissible for lack of standing; xxiii. Find that the Applicant states that prejudice is not obvious; xxiv. Find that the Respondent State did not commit any fault. xxv. Declare that it lacks jurisdiction and consequently dismiss the request for compensation. 7