Orders Sought 10. Upon these facts, the 2nd Defendant sought the following reliefs: a) To adjudge and declare that Mr Chief Frank Ukor did not submit evidence of the proof of violation of his fundamental rights, as drawn from Articles 2, 3, 7 and 14 of the African Charter on It Peoples' Rights; b) To adjudge and declare that Mr. Chief Frank Ukor did not, as well, tender any evidence to prove the violation [sic] his rights under Article 3 of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty; c) To acknowledge that Mr. Frank Ukor did not provide evidence to whether he ever seized the Courts of the Republic of Benin to obtain the quashing of the seizure Order made on his 1,785 packets of various items and trailer No. XG 796 JJJ, and as to whether the Benin Courts obstructed him from defending himself through a lawyer, and whether the Benin Courts refused to uphold his rights; d) To adjudge and declare that no wrong may be attributed to the Government of the Republic of Benin or its judiciary, and that consequently, the Government of Benin has not violated in any way whatsoever, Articles 2, 3, 7 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, nor Articles 3 and 4 of the treaty of the ECOWAS Community; e) To dismiss, purely and simply, the Application of Chief Frank Ukor, together with all his claims, purposes and Orders sought, as directed against the Government of the Republic of Benin, the 2nd Defendant; f) To Order the Applicant to bear the total cost of the proceedings, to be paid to Hippolyte Yede Esq. and Friggens J. Adjavon Esq., lawyers for the Government of Republic of Benin. The Legal Arguments of the 2nd Defendant 11. The Government of the Republic of Benin observes that no evidence was furnished by the Applicant concerning the gendarmes and customs officials of Benin who seized his goods and trailer. 12. The Government of the Republic of Benin equally observes that Mr. Chief Frank C. Ukor did not submit, in the course of the proceedings, any evidence to prove whether he has actually made any legitimate claim of a criminal act against Mr. Rachad Laleye, and whether the Benin authorities in charge of investigating crimes were thereby unable to come to his assistance, in terms of mounting a search for him and apprehending him for the purposes of placing him under a legal arrest. Nor did he tender any evidence to prove that the Government of Benin restrained him from defending himself through any Counsel of his choice, to obtain the lifting of the Order of seizure for protection-of-security imposed by Mr. Rachad Laleye. 13. Hence, he reiterated that the Applicant/Plaintiff cannot claim that the 2nd Defendant violated the provisions of Article 7 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights. He further submits that the Applicant did not produce any evidence to prove that he brought his case before any of Benin's judicial bodies in order to have the Order of seizure quashed, and whether in so doing, he did not benefit from absolute equality of protection before the law vis-a-vis Rachad Laleye, and that he became a victim of discriminatory treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Or yet still whether the Benin Courts failed to deliver judgment and that by such act he was denied equality of protection by the law. 14. It therefore follows that the Applicant cannot maintain the position that the Government of Benin violated the provisions of Article 3 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. As regards the argument relating to the alleged violation of Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and Article 3 of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty, to the effect that by authorising Mr. Rachad Laleye, through Order No. 10/2004 of 8th January, 2004, to seize his items for the protection-of-security, in order to recover a debt owed him, the Government of Benin had allegedly aided and abetted the violation the freedom of goods guaranteed under Article 3 of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty and the enjoyment of rights and freedoms guaranteed under Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. He submits that these arguments cannot stand the test of any reasonable legal analysis and relies on the provisions of Acte Uniforme de l'OHADA, on methods of enforcement applicable in the Republic of Benin and that the President of the Cotonou Court of First Instance who made Order No. 10/2004 of 8th January, 2004 did not 4