ri:fV 6�!:tEfi �(.aHm • Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility entertain the appeal in Devendra11ath Hurnam v N Devat and others, the JCPC contemplation that the Court of Appeal had yet to consider the issue would be tenuous as a ground for supposing that the issue is still ongoing before domestic courts as the Respondent State suggests. 86. The issue also arose subsequently in the same year in yet another case of Ex parte Devendranath Hurnam. The Judge in dealing with the procedural issues in chambers and relying on the 1 July 2011 ruling, decided that the ex-parte application cannot be instituted by the applicant in person/without recourse to an Attorney and on appeal, the Complainant once again requested that the issue of litigating in person should be reconsidered (see paragraphs 23 and 24 above). The Court of Appeal's decision on 7 November 2013 in this case clearly shows that: (a) the Complainant's request was ignored; (b) the Court of Appeal still regarded the issue as settled in the 1 July 201 1 ruling as sacrosanct. The Court however, allowed the appeal on the ground that in filing the ex-parte application, the Complainant was acting as a Respondent and is not covered by the 1 July 2011 ruling. 87. From all the cases cited above, the Commission is of the view that the Court of Appeal had taken a firm position not to revisit the 1 July 2011 ruling that the Complainant could not institute proceedings before the Supreme Court in person. The Commission also finds that, despite the fact that the 1 July 201 1 ruling affected any other person who would institute proceedings in person, the JCPC as a court of last resort earlier took the view that it could not consider the issue as it is not an arguable point of general public importance to warrant attention. 88. In light of the above, the Commission is convinced that there was no other court the Complainant could go to in Mauritius to get redress on this issue.. The Commission accordingly finds that the Complainant had exhausted local remedies initially as at December 2011 and later on upon further attempts by July 2013 when on both occasions the JCPC, the court of last resort, declined to entertain his appeals on the issue of litigating in person. 89. Further, the Commission notes that the Complainant's motions for orders to re­ open the criminal and disciplinary cases were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The decision dismissing the motions is what gave rise to the issue of litigating in person. The disciplinary case is inextricably connected to the criminal cas �=:::::-....... ,. . t' Atncan 1 Union,� Page 2 African Commission on Human and P 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo West Coast R Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (2 Email: au-banjul@afr hnps:/achpr. i if. �