of 10 June 1985. For his part, against this same ruling, the successors of the late NOCA instituted a third-party opposition under RC 1729 before the Bukavu High Court, but the Appeals Judge confirmed his colleague's first proof ruling. 67. The Complainant further states that the Minister gave a second instruction to his Counsel in the Supreme Court to seize this Court to set aside the Judgement rendered by the Bukavu Appeals Court. This judgement was annulled and the case returned to the Kinshasa/Matete Appeals Court. 68. The Complainant alleges that the State did not win the case before this Court and again through the intermediary of the Minister of Justice introduced a second petition for annulment against the judgement RAC 001 of 29/12/1994 issued by the Kinshasa/Matete Appeals Court. The Supreme Court, seized once again, did not give in to the State's request and the case was dismissed. 69. The Complainant notes that the demise of Mr. Lucio Noca in Sorvedolo, Italy in 1992, occurred subsequent to the institution of the first annulment proceedings initiated in 1991 and the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to call the Noca successor to the case to enable the latter to present his case and defend his interests just like Mr. Kafwa. 70. According to the Complainant, the ruling of the Supreme Court under Judgement No RCR/C 019 of 14 July 2000 ordered the successors in title of the late NOCA to continue the suit in the following terms: "Start proceedings to allow perfecting of the case. Give instructions for the notification of dates to be issued collectively to the successors in title of the late NOCA LUCIO to the elected Domicile during his lifetime". 8 71. The Complainant further alleges that, on the subject of the pursuance of the lawsuit, this Judgement puts forward the following reasons: "the Court indicates that the combination of Articles 19 and 20 of the procedure applicable before it, the time frame appoints beforehand the 6 months set out collectively to the successors in title at the last elected domicile. This formality was not fulfilled in this case. In consequence, since Mr. NOCA's successors in title were not informed of the current proceedings, they cannot be presumed to have withdrawn from the pursuance of the lawsuit". 72. The Complainant contends that afterwards the Dino Noca party was summoned to pursue the lawsuit by a writ served by a bailiff 9 under the terms of Judgment No RCR/C 019 of 14 July 2002. 73. The Complainant states that as the sole heir to Lucio Noca's estate,Mr. Dino Noca responded to the summons of the Supreme Court to resume the suit during which he became a constrained party, a position which is clarified by an author as follows: "where a party has just died when a case is pending, a voluntary or constrained resumption of the suit may be resorted to by the heirs in order to continue the proceedings"10 74. The Complainant also alleges that it is surprising to note that in spite of the decision by the Supreme Court to resume the case pending before it, the latter surprisingly prohibited the NOCA Party, under judgement RCR/C019 delivered on the merit on 28th November 2003, from submitting the case for the defence by rejecting the right of the Noca succession's pursuance of the suit that it had itself decided and a allow a third-party opposition. According to that Judgement, the following was stipulated: "regarding the third-party opposition and the pursuance of the suit, the Court rules that the Judgement RC029/TSR having been declared inadmissible, the joint appeal of 3rd May 1995 as emanating from Mr. NOCA Lucio who had passed away on the 27th May 1992, the issue is definitively settled since Judgement No RAC/001 of 29 December 1994 of the Kinshasa/Matete Appeals Court which had acquired competence of the case had irrevocably judged against the NOCA Lucio successors. Consequently, the pursuance of the suit should not have been ordered".11 75. The Complainant regrets that in spite of his determination to continue the suit, the Supreme Court did not give him that opportunity because it rescinded its decision to allow the suit to continue by nullifying it, whereas in such circumstances, if the Supreme Court had thought it had made a mistake by forcing Dino Noca to continue the suit, it should have reopened proceedings for the purposes of notifying Dino Noca of this fact. 76. The Complainant believes that the parties should therefore take the written conclusions and present arguments on the position of the Supreme Court with regard to the resumption of the suit by the heirs of late Noca which is presumed to have been wrongly ordered. 77. The Complainant asserts that the final decision RCR/C019 of 28 November 2003 pretends to be unaware of the existence of the previous decision RCR/C 019 of 14 July 2002, which provides the above reasons as justification for the pursuance of the suit by the Noca claimants. 78. The Complainant is outraged at the possibility that the composition of the Court, which is the author of the decision of 28 November 2003, should have a real problem of interpretation of these two decisions which it was required to reconcile in light of the judgment delivered by all sections put together. 6