Article 19(2) of the 1991 Protocol on the Court: Decisions of the Court shall be read in open Court and shall state the reasons on which they are based. Subject to the provision on review contained in this Protocol, such decisions shall be final and immediately enforceable. 16. Then the Court adjourned the Case to a later date, June 18th 2007, to reserve further proceedings and ask the Court Registry to effect service of notice on the Defendants in due and lawful manner . Even though properly served, the Defendants did not appear in Court, but wrote a second letter, dated 25th May 2007, to the president ECOWAS Commission with a copy to the Court, in which they stated that: "... the Defendants will not participate in any Court session of the Community Court of Justice, until issue of competence is effectively resolved by, institution of an independent Appeal Court; Respondents (i.e. the Defendants) will neither participate in the session scheduled for 18th[[/sup]] June 2007 nor any other, until the Commission finds a solution to this problem." 17. At its Court hearing of 18th June, 2007, the Court actually took note of the non-appearance of the Defendants, and in taking the contents of the above-cited letter into consideration, the Court deliberated on the Case, after a last hearing of the Applicant. 18. The Case now comes before the Court for final decision on the merits, and upon the issues underlying the arguments submitted by the Parties. Recapitulation of the Arguments of the Parties 19. The Applicant alleges the violation of his fundamental rights by the Defendants. He maintains that he has been economically exploited by the Defendants on the grounds that he carried out the same services as before, for the Commonwealth Secretariat, for a period of one year (1 year) without being paid with the same value of money. That this conduct on the part of the Defendants constitutes a violation of his right to equal salary for equal work. The Applicant cites in support, Article 15(5) [sic] of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and Article 23 × 1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. 2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. 3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. 4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. 20. Besides, the Applicant indicates that since the Defendants did not advance any argument of testimony in defence, the Court must decide in favour of his claims, which do not suffer from any counter arguments by the Defendants. The Applicant urges the Court to grant his requests as contained in his Application, in regard to paragraph 13 of the 1998 Declaration of the International Conference of Tehran (Iran) on Human Rights, as well as, the Preamble of the International Pact relating to Civil Rights, and the Pact relating to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 both of which derive from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 21. The Defendants, on their part, challenge the competence of the Court in the instant Case. They contend that the rights claimed by the Applicant are not positively conferred by statute or by contract, and that what is at stake is an issue of salary claims, for which the Applicant had already received part payment, and that as a result, his claims vitiate his action. The Defendants further state that the Applicant's claims are in respect quantum meruit and not in terms of rights positively set out in a contract. And that on this ground, one is not dealing with a human right so the Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Case. 22. From the foregoing, particularly, as regards the facts and arguments advanced by the Parties, the Court will have to answer the following questions: 1. Has the Applicant been exploited economically Defendants? 2. Have the Applicant's rights to equal work for equal salary violated? 3. Are the rights being claimed by the Applicant positively established by contract or statute? 4. Does the Court of Justice of ECOWAS have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Case? 4