of the Supreme Court. The position of the Commission regarding the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Charter applies to the argument of the Respondent State. 129. In particular, the Commission is of the opinion that the burden of proof rests primarily with the alleging party, but that in this case it is shifted to the Respondent State, or is at least equally shared between the parties, since the Commission subsequently requested the State to produce the copy of the judgment in dispute. Consequently, to demonstrate the unfounded nature of the claims of the Complainant, the Respondent State should have produced contrary proof of the allegations of the latter by submitting the documents required by the Commission, which it failed to do despite numerous requests. 130. In any event, considering the instances of violation of procedural rights that occurred in the process leading up to the contested decision - which violations have been established by the Commission - the terms of that decision would not have changed the course of the Commission’s findings. Moreover, the decision would not have derived any validity from the process which itself does not comply with the principles upheld by the African Charter. 131. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Complainant’s rights to have his case heard by a competent court and to have the opportunity to defend himself were respected. The Commission therefore concludes that the provisions of Articles 7 (1) (a) and 7 (1) (c) of the African Charter were violated. Prayers of the Complainant 132. In order to receive reparation for the violations alleged, the Complainant prays the Commission to: 1. Declare null and void Judgement No. RA444/445/452 of 17 April 2000 by the Supreme Court of the DRC; 2. Grant a fair compensation to the Complainant for being deprived of the enjoyment of his rights with effect from 1 April 1998 of the amount of 500,000 U.S. dollars, awarded to him in respect of fees by the National Bar Council; and 3. Recognize the Complainant’s right to claim against Pharmakina Company in respect of the latter’s legal obligation to comply with the 26