104. For the Respondent State, a reproduction of the testimony of the successors and the Deed of pursuance of the suit was done so as to establish the futility of the lawsuit instituted by Mr. NOCA Dino before the Commission. 105. Following reading of the terms of the late NOCA Lucio's will, the Respondent State declares that NOCA Dino admitted that his father had sold the disputed building to Mr. KASILEMBO. Therefore, the only logical conclusion to be drawn was that the said building had long ago ceased to be part of Mr. NOCA Lucio's inheritance and estate. According to the State, it was with good reason that the Supreme Court had dismissed all of Mr. NOCA Dino's claims. Consequently, it is up to Mr. KASILEMBO to claim his landed property. 106. The Respondent State in its conclusion asserts that according to the history of the facts and background of the case, Mr. KASILEMBO, having been subpoenaed to the suit RC1683 in voluntary intervention of 3rd January 1986, he also voluntarily withdrew his suit and in any case did not file any appeal against the Judgement of the 19th February 1986 which had declared his suit inadmissible for non payment of deposit. Thus, the real property rights on which Mr. NOCA Dino based his appeal having been transmitted at the time to Mr. KASILEMBO, or at least since 1986, Mr. NOCA Dino should have his appeal dismissed for want of qualification due to the absence of his own claimed right to the property. 107. The Respondent State in its memorandum is of the view that since Mr. NOCA, Father, could not take advantage of a right to property which he had already assigned to a third Party; his successor had wrongfully pleaded the violation of Article 14 of the Charter to which he is a stranger. 108. With regard to the violation of Article 7 of the African Charter, the Respondent State submits that Mr. NOCA Dino is taking advantage of his own wrongdoing or more specifically of the fraud in his claim. 109. The Respondent State in fact further indicates that as the case referred by the ruling of the Appeals Court to the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court for the determination of the merits was the result of the filing of the second appeal which the Supreme Court considered as justified that brought about the second appeal, it was only natural for it to be quashed in respect of Mr. NOCA Lucio, once it was revealed at the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court that the second appeal which was based on this second appeal was fraudulent as it was filed on 3 May 1995 on behalf of Mr. NOCA Lucio whose demise had occurred on 27 May,1992. 110. The Respondent State concludes by saying that it was therefore natural that the successor of the deceased who claimed to have filed an appeal should be kept out of the proceedings. 111. The Respondent State claims that the Supreme Court's action, the reasoning of which is irreproachable in law, cannot at all be considered as a violation of Article 7 of the Charter. Complainant's rebuttal on the Merits 112. The Complainant contends that while looking at the facts, the Respondent State has itself outlined the process of putting the late NOCA at a disadvantage by its officials. 113. The Complainant points out that following a request for land on the 30th January 1984 submitted by Mr. KAFWA, then Public Prosecutor in Bukavu, the Curator, who had all the same been informed of the abrogation of Order n?1440/000152/80 of 3 September 1980 by Order no 1440/000207/82 of 20 September 1982 restoring the rights of Mr. Noca. 114. He notes that the Curator, by complying with an order that is palpably illegal, later on 9 June 1984, established a registration certificate volume F 82-folio 3, in the form of a title deed in favour of Mr. KAFWA. 115. The Complainant points out the decision smacks of complicity between the Governor of the region, the Curator of title deeds and KAFWA. But he later indicates that later, the Minister of State in charge of Landed Property instructed his Counsel Mr. MAMBOLEO in the following terms: "...the Curator has issued a registration certificate to citizen KAFWA KASONGO BIN KASENDE. As this registration certificate has no legal basis, I request you to institute proceedings to have it annulled". 116. Then began the proceedings of the DRC against KAFWA joined by the NOCA party for the triumph of justice and truth. 117. The Complainant first of all underlines the fact that all the legal actions to which the late NOCA had been a party or had had to initiate, in the final analysis, had been to defend his interests and that of his estate. He points out that at no time in the proceedings did any court sitting on the merits or cassation find it necessary to raise objection, which in principle cannot happen at this stage. No court has ever dismissed the case of the late NOCA for want of quality, an argument which cannot be brought up for the first time before the Commission by the DRC. 9