4. The Applicant further avers that following SBEE’s failure to perform the contract, he sued it before the Cotonou Court of First Instance, which dismissed the suit by Judgment No. 070/17/3e of 22 December 2017 (hereinafter “the Judgment of 22 December 2017”).2 The Applicant further avers that he appealed the court’s decision, however, at the time of filing this Application, the Cotonou Court of Appeal had still not handed down its decision rather, it had adjourned the case several times. The said judgment was only made available to his lawyer on 2 November 2020. He claims that his rights as protected by international human rights instruments were violated by the national courts in the course of these proceedings. 5. The Applicant further states, concerning another case, that he granted a loan of Ten Million (10,000,000) CFA Francs to one Edouard OUIN-OUROU, allegedly a civil servant of the Respondent State. He claims that the said Edouard OUIN-OUROU failed to pay the said sum despite numerous reminders, which, in his view, engages the responsibility of the Respondent State insofar as the events took place on its territory. B. Alleged violations 6. The Applicant alleges the violation of the following rights and obligations: i. Violation of the right to a fair trial protected by Article 7 of the Charter and Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); ii. Violation of the right to legitimate expectation of justice, protected by the Article 7 of the Charter, Articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of The operative part of the judgment reads as follows: “Notes that tax assistance contract No. 961/14/SBEE/DG/CCMP/PRMP/DCB/SA was signed between the Beninese company SBEE and the firm TAX EXPERTISE. Notes that TAX EXPERTISE Sarl is not a liberal accounting professional. Consequently, dismisses the plea of inadmissibility raised by SBEE in all its claims. Receives the action from TAX EXPERTISE Sarl. Holds that the parties agreed on a fee rate of 1.5% excluding tax of the amount of savings achieved. Holds that the contract is not tainted by fraud. Further states that it has been performed as agreed between the parties. Consequently, dismisses TAX EXPERTISE Sarl of all its claims. Finds that SBEE's claim for damages for abuse of process is unfounded. Declares that there are no grounds for provisional execution. Orders TAX EXPERTISE Sarl to pay the costs. 2 3