Respondent State prays that the Commission should consider the complaint unfounded, and that the case be dismissed accordingly. 61. In order to determine the validity of the claims made by the parties, the Commission is thus obliged to examine the alleged violations in light of the facts and the law. Violation of Article 3 62. Article 3 of the African Charter provides that: “Every individual shall be equal before the law. Every individual shall be entitled to equal protection of the law.” 63. The Complainant contends that the case before the Commission stems from the non-payment of the fees owed to him by his former client, Pharmakina Company, as remuneration for services rendered in connection with the retrocession from the estate of the latter of several cinchona plantations. According to the Complainant, the said plantations had been transferred to Congolese nationals in pursuance of presidential decisions of November 1973. 64. The Complainant also alleges that Pharmakina Company acknowledges to have been rendered the service, but claims, however, to have already paid the fees in question. 65. When the parties could not reach an agreement because of their diametrically opposed positions, the Complainant brought the dispute before the relevant bodies of the National Bar Association. On 1 April 1998, the National Bar Council issued in favour of the Complainant Arbitral Award No. 98/CNO/LH/006, ordering Pharmakina Company to pay the Complainant the sum of 500,000 (five hundred thousand) U.S. dollars, the amount of the fees in dispute. 66. On 10 August 1998, Pharmakina Company lodged with the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court two petitions for annulment under Nos. RA 444 and 445, notified to the Complainant respectively on 20 August 1998 and 19 September 1998. The Congolese Supreme Court granted the request of Pharmakina Company by annulling the decision of the National Bar Council by Judgement No. 444/445/452 of 17 April 2000. 67. Before the same Supreme Court, the President of the National Bar Association instituted third-party proceedings, filed under No. RA 667/2001, on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant avers that by the date the Commission 11