118. The Complainant further indicates that in view of the legal proceedings that the Respondent State had had to institute instead of trying to defend itself against the violation of the African Charter by its officials, for which reason it finds itself before the Commission, it should have taken the lead and humbly acknowledged the injury suffered by the petitioner and in addition propose means of arriving at an amicable settlement of this dispute. 119. The Complainant alleges that concerning the sole argument seeking the dismissal of NOCA's appeal on the grounds that the building is no longer the property of the late Mr NOCA and, therefore, of his successor; we think it would be useful to have recourse to constant jurisprudence in that contracts can only give rise to actual obligations and cannot affect by themselves the transfer of real rights, even between the contracting parties, and that the conveyance of property can only stem from an entry into the registration record13 . This ruling by the Court of First Instance was upheld by the Supreme Court.14 120. The Complainant, in addition, underscored that this jurisprudence has remained constant to this day, in spite of the divergence in opinion with regard to the doctrine. On the grounds of this jurisprudence, it was decided that only the holder of a registration certificate can claim ownership of a building and the property shall be deemed to belong to him as long as the transfer has not taken place. In this particular case, the matter referred to the Commission by NOCA Dino, son and sole heir to the late NOCA Lucio, can only be admissible because of the position of this jurisprudence. 121. Moreover, the Complainant argues, as indicated in the memorandum on admissibility, that the African Commission does not make legal formalism its pet subject; but that the most important thing is to know whether the African Charter has been violated; which has amply been demonstrated and recognized by the Respondent State itself. 122. The Complainant concludes by praying the Commission, in view of the foregoing, to do justice to the Complainant's request and to his subsequent requests. The Commission's Analysis on the Merits 123. In the present Communication, the Commission seeks to determine if the assignment of the Noca building to Mr. Kafwa Kasongo constitutes a violation of Articles 3, 7.1(c) and 14 of the African Charter. 124. The violation of Article 14 of the African Charter will first be examined, given that this provision is the source of the other violations. 125. Articles 3 and 7.1(c) will be examined together, given that both articles were violated in the same circumstances of time and place. Alleged Violation of Article 14 126. The Complainant argues that the decision taken by the Curator of Title Deeds to issue the registration certificate of Mr. NOCA's building to Mr. KAFWA was a violation of Article 14 of the African Charter. 127. Article 14 of the African Charter states that: "The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws".15 128. Before the Commission determines whether Article 14 was violated in this present Communication, there is the need to ascertain who can be the holder of a property right. Article 14 of the Charter does not specify who the holder of the right of ownership is 16 . However, its interpretation in the light of Article 2 of the African Charter 17 , and the jurisprudence of the Commission18 clearly show, beyond reasonable doubt, that every individual has the right to property under the Charter. 129. In the present Communication, the victim, Mr. Noca, an Italian national, alleges that his property was stolen under the pretext of the execution of residential measures referred to as economic measures based on the Congolese law of 2 July 1974 relative to abandoned or undeveloped property and other assets acquired by the State under the law. 130. The Complainant affirms that in order to avoid the likelihood of his building being declared as abandoned, thereby paving the way for its transfer to Congolese nationals; his client had taken all the necessary precaution by entrusting his building to SONAS before leaving the DRC. 131. Notwithstanding this precaution taken by Mr. Noca, the Complainant said the greed to grab the assets of foreigners motivated some Congolese, in collusion with some State officials, to deceive the authorities and declare NOCA's building as abandoned through Order No. 1440/000152/80 of 3rd September 1980. 132. The Complainant argues, however, that following the intervention of SONAS which formulated favourable opposition in this regard and which was accepted by the Minister responsible for landed 10