004061 210 . The Respondent State submits that, in the present case, the principle of two- tier jurisdiction has been meticulously observed because the Applicant's case has been heard not only by the Cotonou First Instance Court, but also on appeal by CRIET. He further submits that in the instant case, CRIET , acting as appellate court, heard the appeal prior to entering a guilty verdict, adding that the appeal procedure is not absolute, and that the fact that the litigant is offered the opportunity to file cassation appeal amounts to an opportunity to have his case reconsidered. *** 211. The Court notes that the right to have a case heard by a higher court is provided by Article 14(5) of ICCPR which reads as follows: "Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the rightto his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a highertribunal according to law". 212. The Court notes that the requirement of two-tier jurisdiction is absolute in criminal matters and is obligatory regardless of the degree of seriousness of the offence or the severity of the penalty incurred by the individual" 213 . In the instant case , the Court finds that whereas, before CRIET, the Applicant was tried for a criminal offense and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment, it was impossible for him to have the facts and the conviction examined by a higher court. The Court notes that , in this case , only the cassation appeal was open to the Applicant. In this respect, the Court notes that it does not at all appear from the provisions of Article 20 of the law establishing CRIET, cited above-", that it adjudicates as an appeal court. Besides, cassation appeal which seeks to "examine the formal or legal aspects of a verdictwithout considering the facts, is not sufficient under Article 14(5) of ICCPR".31 General Comments No. 32 op. cit. § 45 See Note No. 17 under § 120 of this judgment 31 HRC Communication No. 2783/206 : Karim Merssa WAD 29 30 I ~ ...