109. Concerning the arguments submitted by the parties, the Commission notes that Congolese law, jurisprudence and doctrine enshrine the civil nature of the dispute between the Complainant and his former client, Pharmakina Company. Such a civil nature is confirmed by the private status of Pharmakina, a public limited company (PLC), 20 involved in a dispute with an individual, in this case the Complainant. Under the Congolese law in force at the date the Commission was seized of the matter, the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of the DRC could not have jurisdiction to entertain an action for annulment of the decision previously rendered in favour of the Complainant by a body recognized by law as having civil jurisdiction to hear that dispute in the last resort. 110. The Commission notes that in response to these arguments, the Respondent State has not sought to prove the contrary of the alleged facts, but has merely reiterated the pleas submitted in relation to the alleged violations of Article 3 of the African Charter. The State insists that the mere failure by the Complainant to produce the disputed Supreme Court decision should make the Commission deprive him of his rights under the Charter. 111. The Commission recalls that the Respondent State could not produce a copy of the decision and the mere fact of failing to comply with this request cannot lead to deprivation of any of the parties of the right to have their submissions examined by the Commission, nor prevent the latter from ruling on the alleged violations. In adopting the same position in the case of Byagonza Christopher (represented by Dr. Curtis Doebbler and Ms. Margreet Wewerinke) v. Uganda, the Commission regretted the fact that the Respondent State failed to produce the decision of the Supreme Court of Uganda and made its decision on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions. 21 112. The right to have one’s case heard before a competent court is a universal requirement. Under Article 2 (3) (b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the States undertake to “ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy.” Article 14 of the same insists that the case should be a “fair and public hearing by a competent tribunal”. These standard requirements are developed by the Committee of Human Rights of the United Nations which states in its General Comment No. 13 that “the failure See Osibouake ‘Pharmakina : de la quinine aux anti-rétroviraux’ http://www.osibouake.org/?RDCPharmakina-a-Bukavu-fabrique (consulté 24 mars 2013). 21 See Byagonza Christopher (represented by Dr. Curtis Doebbler and Ms. Margreet Wewerinke) v. Uganda Communication 365/08 paras 151-154, 168. 20 21