Respondent therefore urged the Court to declare the Application inadmissible, for lack of standing to appear before this Court. 16. In its response to the allegation of violation of the right to a fair hearing during the various proceedings of the Court, the Respondents aver that the Applicant was ably represented at each stage of the various court proceedings by lawyers, who ensured the defence of his interest. Therefore an allegation of violation of his right to a fair hearing is not sustainable and should be dismissed. Furthermore, the Respondent contends that the Applicant has not demonstrated any aspect of a fair hearing that has been violated by the Respondent and that even if there was, the Applicant should have sought for reparation at the national courts in line with the code of obligations of Governments. 17. Regarding the judgment approving the auction, the Respondent argued that the Applicant’s claims are irrelevant and that in any case, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to examine the decisions of national courts. 18. On the right to property, the Respondent reiterated the fact that the Applicant not being the owner of the auctioned property cannot claim a violation of his right therein. Additionally, they argued that the same constitution which guarantees the right to property also grants prerogative to the National Assembly to determine the regime of the property, the real rights and civil and commercial obligations, labour law, the right to form workers’ association, as well as social security. b) Pleas in law. 8