181. In terms of compliance or otherwise with the principle, the Court notes that it is for reasons of the identity of the two procedures that CRIET, in the operative part of its Judgment, declared that it reversed "in all its provisions the Judgment No. 262/1 FD-16 of 4 November 2016". 182. The Court also notes that the term idem relates not only to the identity of the parties and the facts, but also to the authority of res judicata . On this point, the Court has already noted that the appeal against the Judgment of 4 November by the Attorney General cannot be binding on the Applicant. As at the date of seizure of CRIET, the said Judgment had already acquired the authority of res judicata and the Respondent State could no longer rely on any ongoing case. 183. It follows that the proceedings before CRIET were in violation of the prohibition of prosecution or criminal punishment in a case for which the Applicant had already been tried and acquitted by a final Judgment that became definitive in accordance with the extant laws and procedures of the Respondent State. 184. The Court finds that the principle of "non bis in idem" under Article 14(7) of ICCPR has been violated. iv. Alleged violation of the right to presumption of innocence 185. The Applicant contends that from the moment of his arrest, and throughout the investigation up to the trial before the Cotonou Court of First Instance, the Customs, the Gendarmerie and the Prosecutor's Office in Cotonou violated his right to presumption of innocence by leading Benin public opinion to believe that he was a drug trafficker. 186. He submits further that the fact that the Court acquitted him on the benefit of the doubt rather than outright acquittal helped to nurture suspicion in regard to his guilt and doubts over his innocence. The Applicant believes that the Attorney General's appeal arbitrarily kept him in a state of ''presumption of guilt", thus violating Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. * I