non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him. 7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country. of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 58. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights are Legal Instruments that all ECOWAS Member States, including the State of Côte d'Ivoire are signatories. At the Community level, their eminent importance has been underlined, notably by the affirmation from all Member States which vowed to expressly respect them. 59. The commitment to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights is derived from its ratification by each of the ECOWAS Member States, of two fundamental Instruments, which are: the ECOWAS Revised Treaty and the Protocol relating to Democracy and Good Governance (Art. 1 h). 60. As to the commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human and Peoples' Rights its pre-eminent place in human rights law, as recognised by the ECOWAS Community is as shown by its mention in the preamble of the aforementioned Protocol. 61. The rights recognised and affirmed by these Instruments constitute international obligations, for Member States, within the scope of general international law and Community law By affirming their commitment expressly to these International Instruments relating to Human Rights, the Community and its component Units (State Parties) have surely in mind, the core element of the United Nations' System which is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the core element of the African system as the expression values of authentic civilisation, which they are ready to uphold. 62. Consequently, while examining the extension of its jurisdiction over cases of human rights violation within the Community landscape, the Court takes into consideration, not only the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, but also, the United Nations' basic Instruments, namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These United Nations Instruments were, at least, accepted by Côte d'Ivoire, which ratified or signed them. 63. The Court notes that the State of Côte d'Ivoire ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 26 March 1992 and ratified the Supplementary Protocol to that Convention on 5 March 1997. 64. Thus, there is no doubt, that all the rights that are guaranteed in these Instruments, which relate to human rights issues, are part of human rights that Côte d'Ivoire must protect on its territory. 65. Equally, by signing the Supplementary Protocol amending the Protocol A/P.1/7/91 relating to the Court of Justice of ECOWAS on 19th January, 2005, Côte d'voire accepts, by so doing, the jurisdiction of the Court on cases relating to issues of human rights violation which occur in its landscape. Consequently, the Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case. On the Admissibility of the Documents Brought Before the Court 66. The first document relates to the one the State of Côte d'Ivoire presented, to substitute or correct its Defence Brief. 67. The Court holds that the State of Côte d'Ivoire was notified of the Application, and was accorded a time-limit during which it could file its defence. A Defence Brief was filed by the Defendant State within the time-limit. There was no Rejoinder from Plaintiffs. A date was fixed for the pleas to be made and the parties were duly summoned. 68. A document which had already been tendered, a little before, or in a hearing, and which features some aspects of a new request in a subsequent hearing shall be deemed as constituting a violation of the provisions of the Rules of the Court. Thus, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and owing to the principle of legality, the Court simply rejects the said document. 69. The second document is the one that was introduced by Counsel to the Plaintiffs, and through which he informs the Court on the withdrawal of three of the Plaintiffs, and the inclusion of a new one, whose name had been omitted earlier, when the main Application was filed. 70. The Court accedes to the first request, since the Applicants are at liberty to withdraw from the case at any stage of the procedure. 71. As for the second request, the Court observes that, pursuant to the Rules of procedure applicable before it, notably Articles 21 of the 1991 Protocol relating to the Court, and 89 of the Rules of Procedure, a 9