APDH v Côte d’Ivoire (2016) 1 AfCLR 668 671 16. He maintained further that the representation in the IEC, of the Minister in charge of Territorial Administration, the Minister in charge of Economy and Finance, the High Judicial Council, the region Prefect, the Department Prefect and the Sub-Prefect is superfluous in the sense that the law governing the IEC in its Article 37, provides that the latter shall be accorded Government assistance in terms of administrative, financial and technical staff, whose support is required for the proper functioning of its services; that the said representation is not only worthless but is also unfair in as much as it creates, in favour of the President of the Republic, an unequal treatment on account of the overrepresentation of the latter within the IEC. 17. Consequently, he prayed the Constitutional Council to declare that the aforementioned provisions of the impugned law are not in conformity with the Constitution. 18. In a Decision rendered on 16 June 2014, the Constitutional Council dismissed Mr Kouassi’s prayers and declared that the impugned provisions were in conformity with the Constitution. The law was then promulgated on 18 June 2014. 19. It was in this context that APDH, on 12 July 2014, seized the Court with the instant case. B. Alleged violations 20. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated its commitment to establish an independent and impartial electoral body as well as its commitment to protect the right to equality before the law and to equal protection by the law, as prescribed in particular by Articles 3 and 13(1) and (2) of the Charter on Human Rights, Articles 10(3) and 17(1) of the African Charter on Democracy, Article 3 of the ECOWAS Democracy Protocol, Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (herein-after referred to as “the Covenant”). III. Procedure before the Court 21. The Application was received at the Registry on 12 July 2014. 22. On 26 September 2014, the Registry notified the Respondent State that an Application had been filed against it, and invited the latter to submit a Response thereto within 60 days of receipt of the notification pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules. 23. On 7 October 2014, the Registry forwarded a copy of the Application to the other entities mentioned in Rule 35 of the Rules. 24. On 9 January 2015, the Registry contacted the Respondent State, drawing its attention to the expiry of the 60 days’ timeframe allowed for it to file its Response to the Application. 25. On 15 April 2015, the Applicant transmitted additional pleadings to its initial Application. On 8 May 2015, the Applicant prayed the Court to enter a judgment in default on the ground that the Respondent had, up till then, failed to file its Response to the Application.