35. However, the Court rather deduces from the decision made by the Supreme Court of Mali that, what we have at hand is a case of damages suffered by the Applicant as it regards his artefacts, and for which he was granted reparation. The Court also holds that the said reparation granted by the Supreme Court of Mali which may not have been to the satisfaction of the Applicant constitutes a different issue. In any case, the Court has already responded that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon decisions made by the domestic courts of Members States of the Cmrununity. 36. Hence, even if the Community Court of Justice were competent to adjudicate in cases on Human Rights violation, the Applicant has not indicated any proof of a characteristic violation of a fundamental Human Right; and in the absence of any such violation, the Application must be declared inadmissible. 37. AII the same, the Applicant's situation as a retired civil servant gives the Court the possibility of exempting him from bearing the costs. 38. FOR THESE REASONS 39. The Community Com1 of Justice, ECOWAS, in a public sitting, after hearing both Pmiies, in a last resmt; Having regard to the Revised Treaty ofECOWAS; Having regard to Protocol APl/7/91 on the Court; Having regard to the January 2005 Supplementaiy Protocol; Having regard to the August 2003 Rules on the Comt; Having regard to the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights; Having regard to the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; THE COURT, Declares that it is incompetent to adjudicate upon the decision made by the Supreme Court of Mali, as to violation of Human Rights; Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm