18.It could be deduced from paragraphs 16 and 17 above that, the Nigerian Judge, before whom the same facts, as those in the instant case were exposed, Mrs. Sa’adatu Umar invoked the violation of Article 4 (mutatis mutandi Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria), 6 (mutatis mutandi Articles 34 and 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) and 12 (mutatis mutandi Article 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) of the African Charter on human and Peoples’ Rights and sought for symbolic and monetary reparations, as well as her release or detention in a special centre. The Judge in the National Court noticed all the alleged violations, set aside the relief bordering on the symbolic reparation, but awarded the sum of 1,000,000.00 Naira in favour of Mrs. Sa’adatu Umar, and ordered her release or detention in a special centre for nursing mothers. 19.Thus, the Court notes that the facts, which constitute the subject – matter of the case that was taken before the Judge in the National Court are essentially the same as those contained in the instant case; the violations of Articles 4, 6 and 12 of the African Charter on human and Peoples’ Rights invoked before the National Judge are essentially the same as the violations of Articles 2, 4, 6 and 12 of the same Charter that Mrs. Sa’adatu Umar invokes in the instant case. Moreover, the Court also notes that the reliefs sought in the instant case, which relate to her release and the award for reparation are essentially the same as those sought in the case that was previously taken before the Judge in the National Court, and to which that Judge did justice. 20.The Court therefore concludes that, the instant case brought before it, is essentially the same as the one earlier taken before the Nigerian Judge, which was adjudicated upon, and whose settlement, if unsatisfactory, could have led Applicant to file an appeal; but, this was not the case. 21.Consequently, and pursuant to its established jurisprudence, the Court declares that it does not re – consider a matter that had already been adjudicated upon in a National Court of a Member – State, and against which there has not been any appeal, and pursuant to the sacred principle of the res judicata, there is no need to consider the instant case on its merit. 9