4. He also challenges Law No. 2018-16 of 4 January 2018 pertaining to the status of the judiciary, which bars judges from going on strike. He notes that although the said law was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court by Decision No. DCC 18-003 of 22 January 2018, the same Court, by Decision DCC 18-141 of 28 June 2018, reversed the earlier decision by declaring the same law consistent with the Constitution. 5. The Applicant also challenges Law No. 2019-40 of 7 November 2019 amending the Respondent State’s Constitution of 11 December 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitutional amendment”) and Law No. 2019-43 of 15 November 2019 pertaining to the Electoral Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Electoral Code”), which were ruled constitutional by the Constitutional Court in Decisions Nos. DCC 19-504 of 6 November 2019 and DCC 19-525 of 14 November 2019 respectively. Finally, he challenges Memorandum No. 914/MEF/DC//SGM/DGI of 13 December 2017 issued by the Director General of Taxes. B. Alleged violations 6. The Applicant alleges a violation of the following rights: i. the right to judicial independence protected by Article 26 of the Charter, Articles 2 and 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Articles 10 and 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 1(h) and 33 of the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy; ii. the right of judges to strike protected by Article 8 of the Charter, and consequently the violation of their right to information, freedom of opinion and expression, their right to form associations freely, and their right to freedom of assembly, protected respectively by Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Charter; 3