79. The Complainant further alleges that the final judgment RCR/CO19 of 28 November 2003 which dismissed the obligation to reopen the proceedings for hearings on the position of Dino Noca, thus deprived the latter of the "right to have his case heard", which right would have provided the Noca party the possibility of appearing for hearing at the Court to prove its claims to the building under litigation12 80. The Complainant further alleges that this attitude of the Court violates in consequence Article 7. 1c and Article 3 of the African Charter. On the one hand, the Noca Lucio successors represented by their legal liquidator Mr. Dino Noca had not had the opportunity to adequately prepare their case for the defense, the evidence and submission of arguments to counter the claims and evidence of the adverse party. On the other hand, the principle of equality before the law stipulated in Article 3 of the Charter was violated since only the case of the opposing party, in this instance Mr. Kafwa, had been taken into account. 81. According to the Complainant, in light of the foregoing, there is no shadow of doubt that the provisions of Article 7. 1c and 3 of the Charter were violated by the Supreme Court, an institution run by officials of State of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Arguments of the Respondent State on the Merits 82. The Respondent State claims that following a request for land ownership signed on 30 January 1984 by Mr. Kafwa, then Public Prosecutor in Bukavu, the Curator of Real Estate of Bukavu by letter n?2448.5/820/84 of 27 March 1984, had proposed to the State Commissioner responsible for Land Issues that he be allocated the building situated on plot 17R/2 in Ibanda, formerly owned by NOCA and declared abandoned by Order n?1440/000152/80 of 3 September 1980 and allocated the same day to a certain MATAKINA who up to the date of the proposal had not paid for the cost to the Public Treasury. 83. The Respondent State argues that at the time the Curator of Title Deeds was making this proposal, he was unaware that the abandonment order had already been repealed by Order No. 1440/000207/82 of 20 September 1982 84. The Respondent State alleges that in response to the letter from the Curator of Title Deeds, the State Commissioner allocated the disputed building to the party per letter no 1445/21/000605/84 of 23 May 1984. However, at the time that the registrar was getting ready to issue the title deeds to give effect to the allocation made by the State Commissioner, he was informed about the existence of the repeal order. 85. The Respondent State further indicates that by a letter dated 30 May 1984, it requested the State Commissioner to confirm the authenticity of the said Order of which he had only been provided with an ordinary photocopy. On 2nd June 1984, the Governor of the Region requested the Curator to prepare the Title Deed in favour of Mr. KAFWA in view of the former owner's lack of interest in recovering his property. 86. The Respondent State in its memorandum states that on the 9th June 1984, the Curator of Real Estate signed a lifetime lease with the applicant in favour of whom he prepared the registration certificate volume F 82-folio3, sequel to the receipt by the Authorities of the costs relating to the valuation of the building as well as the related expenses, so that following the annulment of the Order that had declared the property abandoned, the concerned parties could no longer make a claim to the legal authorities for the building for which the ownership had been finally and legally allocated to the applicant pursuant to Section 227 of the Land Law which stipulates that the registration certificate was final and constituted evidence as of right of the ownership of the building. 87. The Respondent State further says that on the 18th July 1984, the DRC, on the signing by the State Commissioner in charge of Landed Property, instructed his Counsel in the following terms: "the Curator has issued a registration certificate to Citizen KAFWA KASONGO BIN KASENDE. This certificate, having no legal basis, I ask you to institute legal proceedings for its annulment". 88. It would appear from the arguments of the Respondent State that using as basis the Report of the State Commissioner for Landed Property, the DRC had instituted a lawsuit against Mr. KAFWA under RC 1443 requesting the annulment of Mr. KAFWA's registration certificate. The outcome was a Judgement on the 10th June 1985, the terms of which declared the demurrer groundless for want of qualification raised by the Respondent; the suit of the original plaintiff and dismissed it in consequence; the suit of the Respondent on reconversion; and condemned each of the Parties to pay half of the taxed costs. 89. The Respondent State shows further that the Republic of Zaire (currently DRC) was notified of the Judgement on the 17th July 1985 represented by the Regional President of the MPR and the Governor of the Kivu Region in Bukavu who was in the latter's office discussing it with Mr. BALAGIZI, official of the Governorate who signed for receipt of the notification, in conformity with Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7