87. The Complainant further submits that he had taken advantage of the interruption of the hearing to inform the Head of the Supreme Court and confirmed the contents of their discussion in his letter of 6 April 2000, copies of which were forwarded to the judges in question and the President of the National Bar Association. The letter was received by the judges concerned four days prior to the delivery of their decision. 88. On the basis of these arguments, the Complainant alleges a violation of Article 7 (1) (c) of the African Charter, given that he was put in a position of inequality and, as a result, was unable to have his case heard and to exercise his right to defence against his opponent, Pharmakina Company. This is the same argument the Complainant strives to establish before the Commission, namely the refusal by the Supreme Court as being the main decision that prevented him from producing his case file. Arguments of the Respondent State Violation of Article 3 89. Concerning the violation of the provisions of Article 3 alleged by the Complainant, the DRC responds by deploring the fact that the Complainant challenges a court decision, namely Judgment No RA 444/445/452, issued by the Supreme Court, without producing a copy of the said decision to allow the Respondent State to make an informed assessment of the objective or subjective motivation of the court being called into question. 90. Moreover, the Respondent State recalls that Information Sheet No. 2 on Guidelines for Submission of Communications requires that to establish the facts constituting violation, the party alleging a violation must explain in as much factual detail as possible what happened, specifying the place, time and date of the violation, if possible. The Respondent State avers that in this case, it is absolutely impossible to have a copy of the contested decision, since the records of the Supreme Court were burnt in 2006 following the unrests that occurred during the pre-election period. The Respondent State argues therefore that since the Complainant was unable to produce a copy of that decision, the Commission must dismiss this claim as unfounded. 91. Whereas the Complainant states that all his appeals to gain access to his case file were dismissed, the Respondent State, on the other hand, claims that after consideration of the application for intervention filed by the Complainant, the Supreme Court had ordered the joinder of the three applications on which it delivered Judgement No. RA 444/445/452. It is in this judgment, the 16