i 23. The Complainant asserts that during the Regional Court of Appeal proceedings, he experienced various instances of illegal manipulation, unfair treatment, and violations of his rights by the presiding Judge. As a result, the Complainant filed a motion seeking the replacement of the Judge, which was disregarded according to his submission. 24. Furthermore, the Complainant states that on 22 June 2022, he submitted a motion to the Chairman of the Court of Appeal of Mudug, seeking the case transfer. However, on 25 June 2022, his request was denied. The Complainant asserts that following the Chairman's denial, he pursued the matter at the Supreme Court of Galmudug. However, the Supreme Court dismissed his request and upheld the Chairman's decision, citing a lack of legal grounds for the complaint. 25. Following the rejection of the Complainant's requests, he was presented with two options: to initiate a new lawsuit or to continue with the case in the Court of Appeal. The Complainant elected to proceed with the case in the Court of Appeal. 26. The Complainant contends that, during the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the Judge admitted as evidence the testimony of an individual that the Court had previously convicted, for engaging in fraudulent activities involving the sale of the Complainant's house. Additionally, another individual with a pending case related to looting and falsely claiming power of attorney to retain control over the Complainant's farm was also involved. The Complainant asserts that despite this procedural irregularity, the Court of Appeal overturned the "50/50 decision" of the Regional Court of Mudug and ruled in favor of the Appellant. 27. The Complainant submits that upon discovering that an individual named "Abdidahir Warsam" had an ongoing case before the Regional Court of Mudug, claiming ownership of a portion of the Complainant's farm, he intervened in the case on 29 February 2022, to contest the validity of the claim. On 23 May 2022, the judge ruled in favor of Mr. Abdidahir and closed the case. The Complainant further asserts that the presiding judge informed him that the Chief Judge and the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeal had instructed him to rule in favour of Mr. Abdidahir. 28. Additionally, the Complainant maintains that individuals affected by property rights violations and land disputes in Somalia often encounter significant obstacles when seeking effective remedies. He further asserts that the Somali judicial system, marred by corruption and administrative inefficiencies, imposes burdensome barriers that impede individuals from pursuing redress and obtaining justice. B. The Respondent States observation on Admissibility 0nHUMAN,q - \'o* cRETAn/ "O ` ,3 by, or A in i 1 P ' AU-UA 'RlcA\\*°'°* or o€5 I