c : �:\ ACH PR ') African Commission on � Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 78. From the Complainant's averments supported by documentary evidence which has been perused by the Commission, and which the Respondent State does not dispute, it is clear that the Complainant lodged his two motions for orders to re­ open the criminal and disciplinary cases respectively before the Supreme Court as first instance jurisdiction. Upon being unsuccessful before the Supreme Court in terms of the 1 July 2011 he sought permission to appeal to the JCPC, the ultimate appellate judicial body, which declined to entertain his appeal on the ground that the application did not raise an arguable point of law of general importance. Clearly, the Complainant exhausted the available domestic judicial remedies, and the Commission finds accordingly with respect to events as at 13 December 2011 when the JCPC communicated its decision declining to entertain the appeal. 79. However, after the decision of the JCPC of 13 December 2011 the Complainant made several further efforts before domestic courts for the legal position adopted in the 1 July 2011 ruling to be reversed so that he could be allowed to act in person in his cases. The Commission notes that it is in respect of these further efforts that the Respondent State contends that the issue is still ongoing before domestic courts and therefore the Complainant has not exhausted local remedies. One of the cases which the Respondent State seeks to rely on in this regard is the case of D Hurnam v The State ofMauritius & K P Matadeen in which the Complainant sought to proceed in person after the demise of his attorney. The issue of whether he could so act in person arose once again, and for purposes of that issue the Complainant requested that a full bench of five judges should be constituted having regard to the points raised in the cases. The request for a five-member bench was declined by the judge to whom adminish·ative powers had been delegated at the· time. 80. In declining to empanel a five-member bench, the judge reasoned that " a full bench of five judges has already decided, in Hurnam v D.P.P. & Ors [20 1 1 SCJ 2 1 9] [the 1 July 201 1 ruling], the question relating to the need of having recourse to an attorney for the institution of proceedings before the Supreme Court . And any questions pertaining to the precise implication of that judgment can properly be decided by any ordinary bench. In relation to the other points for determination . . . there does not appear to be of such " magnitude" in the "interests at stake" or such r law involved" as to warrant the "importance or intricacy of the q ..,"> cJ..i <, "1 r 4 setting up of a full bench. . . " ��'4� �, 1 fli". <"\\ 0 p .,., . • . .· ,,,... /i n • mission on Human and Peoples' Rig hts lo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 Email: au-banj ul@ africa-u n ion .org https:/achpr.au.int/0 0 D