000fEt 52. The Court further notes that although the communication at the HRC and the Views of the HRC were based on the ICCPR and not on the Charter of the United Nations or the Constitutive Act of the African Union, or the provisions of the Charter, the principles contained in the provisions of the ICCPR that the HRC gave its Views on are identical to the principles provided for in the provisions of the Charter.l3 Substantively, therefore, the HRC adjudicated on the same issues that the Applicant has brought before this Court. 53. As has been noted by the Court, if the subsequent claim is not detachable from the claim(s) earlier examined by another tribunal, then it follows that the matter will be deemed to have been settled especially since "the identity of the claims extends to their additional and alternative nature or whether they derive from a claim examined in a previous case."14 Applying the foregoing reasoning, it follows that the present Application has been settled by the HRC within the meaning of Article 56(7) of the Charter and Rule 40(7) of the Rules. 54. ln the Court's view, and in respect of the admissibility requirement underArticle 56(7) of the Charter, it does not matter that the decision of the HRC has been implemented or not. lt also does not matter whether the said decision is classified as binding or not. ln its jurisprudence, the Court has consistently refused to deal with any matter that is pending before the Commission or one that has been settled by the Commission, this notwithstanding the fact that the findings of the Commission are termed "recommendations", which are not binding.ls ln the present case, the Applicant elected to file his case before the HRC, and not before this Court, over a year after Ghana had deposited its Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. ln the circumstances, the Applicant cannot, therefore, claim that the forum he chose does not make binding decisions and that since the Views of the HRC have not been 13 By way of example, Article 6(1) of the ICCPR provides for the right to life and this is mirrored by Article 4 of the Charter; Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment and this is captured by Article 5 of the Charter; and the right to a fair trial under Article 14 of the ICCPR finds its equivalent in Article 7 of the Charter. 14 Jean-Claude Gombeft v Cote d'lvoire, $ 51. 15 Cf. Application No.003/2011. Judgment of 21 10612013 (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), Urban Mkandawire v Republic of Malawi $ 33. 16