was seized of the matter, the Supreme Court of the DRC had still not ruled on this last appeal. 68. The Complainant alleges that he was not notified of the filing with the Administrative Registry of the notices issued by the Public Prosecutor in respect of the three cases numbered RA 444 and 445 for Pharmakina Company and 452 for the Complainant, in accordance with Rule 8 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Supreme Court which states that “Any petition, indictment or brief filed with the Registry in relation to any contentious matters should have previously been communicated to the party against whom the petition is directed.” 69. The Complainant also alleges to have requested the Supreme Court to defer the case by four months to allow him to produce his case file that was in Bukavu, his place of residence, given that at the outbreak of the war in the East of the country, on 2 August 1998, he was in Kinshasa and could not, therefore, produce the aforementioned file against his client, the Pharmakina Company, which had produced its own. 70. The Complainant alleges that the case of force majeure invoked constituted by the war that erupted in the East of the country on 2 August 1998 was not taken into consideration. The Complainant thus submits that the Supreme Court ruled that “the intervening party – that is, the Complainant – having invoked force majeure in his petition, namely the impossibility for him to attach the case file to his petition as a result of the war, should have complied with Rule 83 of the same Rules of Procedure which stipulates that intervention may not delay the dispute resolution, and forwarded the petition after 30 September 1998, the date it was filed, instead of waiting for the end of the war on a date that no one can tell.” 71. The Complainant submits that the Congolese Supreme Court did not examine the above-mentioned petition in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa which includes among essential elements the principle of: “equality of arms between the parties to a proceedings, whether they be administrative, civil, criminal, or military ... adequate opportunity to prepare a case, present arguments and evidence and to challenge or respond to opposing arguments or evidence….”13 In support of that plea, the Complainant, referring to the relevant provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights argues that the principle of equality of arms before the law is the idea Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2001), Principles A(2)(a) and A(2)(e). 13 12