Respondent State further affirms, that the Congolese Supreme Court had declared the Complainant’s application for intervention unfounded, and the application for annulment founded, leading to the annulment of Arbitral Award No. 98/CNO/CH/006 of 1 April 1998 issued by the National Bar Council in favour of the Complainant. Violation of Articles 7 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (c) 92. In response to the allegations of violation of Articles 7 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (c) of the African Charter, the Respondent State reiterates the arguments submitted in relation to the allegations of violation of Article 3 of the Charter. The DRC maintains that by failing to produce a copy of the contested judgment, the Complainant made it impossible for the State to assess the arbitrary and subjective nature of the motivation of the Congolese Supreme Court so as to find justification for the dismissal of his application for a four-month deferment of the case to enable him to obtain his documents. 93. The Respondent State further argues that this situation raises serious doubts as to the alleged violation of the rights of the Complainant and therefore calls on the Commission to declare the second plea unfounded and to dismiss the Complaint. 94. Concerning the reasons for the contested judgement, the Complainant contends that no reasons were provided for the decision and that, in addition, the parties were denied copies by the authorities. The Respondent State, for its part, merely points out to the Commission that the Complainant has no evidence to substantiate this claim. Analysis of the Commission on the Merits Violation of Article 3 95. 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.” 96. Alleging a violation of Article 3 of the African Charter, the Complainant seeks to have the Commission note the non-compliance by the Supreme Court of the DRC with the fundamental principle of equality before the law. As adequately shown by the Complainant in his submission, this violation is evidenced in the position of inequality in which the court placed him by preventing him from presenting his case on the same basis as the opposing party. 17