provided for by law, make a plea of unconstitutionality24 of a law, if he believes that the law applicable to his case would not be consistent with the Constitution. Thus, the courts before which such objections are raised shall be compelled to refer the matter to the Constitutional Council for stay of proceedings until the latter rules on the preliminary question referred to it. If the Constitutional Council considers the provision to be unconstitutional, the latter provision shall be set aside in the case of the ongoing dispute.25. 105. For its part, the Supreme Court26, the highest regular court ensures respect for human rights all over the country as it is:  a court which rules in first and second instance on abuse of power 27 by the executive arm of government and on the legality of actions of local authorities28 ;  competent to rule in last instance in a dispute involving voters’ registration and in rural, municipal and regional elections ;  responsible for hearing appeals in cassation on grounds of incompetence, breach of the law or of custom against : o judicial decisions and rulings pronounced in the last instance by all other courts ; o decisions of arbitration boards on collective labour disputes ; o competence regarding appeals in cassation against the Court of Auditors and rulings pronounced in the last instance by quasijudicial administrative bodies ;  called upon to rule on : o applications for review of judicial decisions ; o applications for transfer from one court to another on grounds of legitimate suspicion or of public safety ; o applications for error of judgment against an appeal court, a court of assizes or a fully-fledged tribunal ; o Conflicting decisions or judgments rendered in last instance by different courts in cases involving the same parties and the same judiciary means. 24 See paragraph 1 of Article 92 of the Constitution. 25 See Supreme Court, Decision No 09 of 03 March 201, Birassy GUISSE et al vs the Rector of the Université Gaston Berger. 26 See Organic Law No 2008-35 of 8 August 2008 on the Supreme Court. 27 A French lawyer Gaston GEZE, at that time, was of the opinion that this remedy was « the most effective tool available in the world to defend freedoms practically and economically» (quoted by Oumar Gaye and Mamadou Seck Diouf in (The Council of State and the Practice of Action for Annulment) Le Conseil d’État et la pratique du recours en annulation, Édition 2001, page 39. 28 Cf. Supreme Court, Judgment No 39 of 23 November 2010, Amadou SYLLA vs Sangalkam Rural Council and the Government of Senegal (on the issue of the allotment of crown lands ), Judgment No 40 of 13 December 2010, Gil Léon Louis Malvielle vs. the Government of Senegal (on the expulsion of a foreigner by Senegalese authorities) 25