268 Mizan Law Review Vol. 6 No.2, December 2012 had res judicata status and the case would have been inadmissible under Article 56(7) of the African Charter.182 Assuming that its decisions remain consistent, the African Commission is thus expected to recognise the res judicata effect of subregional courts’ decisions. The admissibility requirements of the African Commission mutatis mutandis apply to the African Court since both rely on the African Charter. Analogy can also be made between the African Court and the ICJ. Article 60 of the Statute of the ICJ provides that its judgment is ‘final and without appeal.’ In Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the ICJ held that the ‘fundamental character of that principle appears from the terms of the Statute of the Court and the Charter of the United Nations.’183 Similarly, the African Court Protocol provides that the ‘judgment of the Court decided by majority shall be final and not subject to appeal.’184 If the African Court faces cases that have already been decided by subregional courts, it may derive the principle of res judicata from its protocol. The caveat in this analogy is that the ICJ applied the principle in its own previous judgment. There are exceptions to the principle of res judicata. A court may review and interpret its decisions. For example, the African Court can review its judgment on the basis of new evidence.185 It can also interpret its judgment.186 With the exception of revision and interpretation, res judicata has the effect of barring the litigants from taking the same case to another court with hopes of obtaining a different judgment, or in anticipation of raising new issues that were not raised at the previous trial.187 Therefore, the African Commission and the Court may apply the principle of res judicata to cases that have already decided by subregional courts. 3.5. Subregional Courts under Article 56(7) Article 56(7) of the African Charter deals with the settlement of certain matters without, however, laying down any criterion for identifying an adjudicatory organ. Nevertheless, the African Commission has adopted certain criteria in its jurisprudence. In Constitutional Rights Project v Nigeria, the African Commission held that it is improper to require the complainant to exhaust domestic remedies from a body that does not ‘operate impartially’ and that has 182 Ibid, para 53. Genocide case, supra note 171, para 115. 184 Protocol on the African Court, art 28(2). 185 Ibid, Art 28(3). 186 Ibid, Art 28(4). 187 Wild, supra note 153, p. 244. 183