ACHPR African Commission on • Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 81. The Commission notes that even though the final decision on D Hurnam v The State of Mauritius & KP Matadeen was not delivered, at the time the Communication was filed before the Commission, the decision of the judge in declining the request for a five-member bench clearly shows that the court regarded the 1 July 201 1 ruling to have settled the issue of whether the Complainant could institute proceedings in person and that the two-member bench in D Hurnam v The State of Mauritius & KP Matadeen were not going to revisit the issue substantively. 82. The second case in respect of which the Respondent State contends that the issue is ongoing before domestic courts is Devendranath Hurnam v N Devat and others in which the Complainant sought to proceed with a motion in . person after his attorney's demise. The judge declared the motion irreceivable because the Complainant could not make that motion in person, relying on the proposition in the 1 July 2011 ruling. The Complainant sought special leave to appeal directly to the JCPC, leap-frogging the Court of Ci_vil Appeal. The JCPC declined special leave on the ground that the Complainant had not first sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 22 above). 83. The Respondent State seeks to rely on the reasoning of the JCPC in declining special leave in Devendranath Hurnam v N Devat and others as indicating that the issue can still be considered by the Court of Appeal and therefore local remedies have not been exhausted. 84. However, it should be noted that the judge's decision in Hurnam v The State of Mauritius & K P Matadeen refusing to empanel a five-member bench, thereby foreclosing the possibility of the Court of Appeal revisiting the issue of instituting proceedings in person, was made in May 2013. As noted above, by that date it was apparent that the Court of Appeal would not revisit the issue with the possibility of changing the legal position in the 1 July 2011 ruling. The JCPC on its part declined to entertain the appeal in Devendranath Hurnam v N Devat and others in July 2013 on the basis that the issue had to be considered by the Court of Appeal first, the very court whichhad earlier in May 2013 already indicated that the issue was already settled and not subject to reconsideration. 85. Therefore, unless the foreclosure of revisiting the issue in Hurnam v The State o Mauritius & K P Matadeen was unknown to the JCPC at the time it decl' f&�•:·_:_ · ._ ::: : -. Page 19 of 45 African Commission on Human and Peo / / /'"' � �ls, Ri tse � 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo Nott!, !ois rict, L _! 0 West Coast Reg, � � bia AUPhone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (22 41 �_g Email: au-banjul@africa- iOJ,1 ��,c .. 0