Human Rights our Collective Responsibility international mechanism for redress in accordance with "the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the [Constitutive Act of the African Union] or the provisions of the . . . Charter"18. In this regard, the Commission does not reckon any issue relating to Article 56(7) of the Charter, and the Communication is compliant with the condition under that provision. 93. In view of the foregoing, the Commission declares the Communication admissible . Merits Complainant's Submissions 94. The Complainant declares himself to be aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius preventing him from litigating in person, which decision was subsequently upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). The Complainant avers that by Interlocutory Judgment of 1 July 2011 (1 July 2011 Ruling), the Supreme Court decreed and declared among other things that all legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of Mauritius shall be commenced by an Attorney-at-law to the exclusion of a litigant in person. The Complainant avers that, in its Interlocutory Judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed his application because it was "drawn up in person by the appellant in person without having recourse to an attorney". 95. The Complainant further considers that the Supreme Court's decision of 30 January 2008 to strike his name off the Roll of Law Practitioners on the basis of his conviction was outrageous. He claims that following receipt of fresh exonerating evidence, he sought to move the Supreme Court to order the re-opening of the criminal trial in which he was convicted and the disciplinary proceedings which led to his disbarment, but he was unsuccessful in both endeavours. 96. The Complainant avers that two motions were introduced to the Supreme Court respectively on 21 February 2011 and on 5 June 2011. Through those two motions the complainant sought to introduce allegedly exculpatory evidence and evidence of underlying covert circumstances that he alleges unjustly led to his conviction, and subsequent disbarment, which evidence was allegedly u v"' , ., � the Complainant at the time of his trial and disciplinary proceedin /•':, c •" •:• .,\ : : � 1 1s The Charter, Art. 56(7) A5ri�, '\ Page 22 of 45 � '3 �l _; � ' \,!ii � i' P�tWs' R' lffe ;; African Commission on H J. n\ 31 Bijilo Annex Layo Ko"� �rr,i\t� . Wes �� tOi'f?ar:�.a".Phone: (220) 230 4361 · 20)�·04 Email: au-banjul@a rica-=i:i'nlci'n.org https:/achpr.au.int,O O a