right to enhanced protection. The political leaders surely are among this group of people, the first in line is the Head of State, who must benefit from strict and enhanced measures of preservation. In the instant case, the circumstances that led to the death of President Vieira, certainly leaves room to see that there was a failure. Having being assassinated by armed assailants, and particularly in atrocious conditions, right at his residence, he certainly did not enjoy adequate protection. In the least, the Defendant State never tried to deny its culpability on this issue, for, it has never brought proof that the late President was, at the time of his assassination, enjoying any specific safeguard measures. 1. At this juncture, the Court wishes to recall that in a very recent past, a similar case was brought before it, which was decided in the Ruling of the « Heirs of Ibrahim Baré Mainassara v. Niger Republic » (dated 23 October 2015). In the case under reference the parties were, on the one hand, the heirs of the deceased President of the Republic of Niger, who was equally assassinated, and whose heirs too sought reparation, and, on the other hand, the State of Niger. The Court declared « … there is no doubt that the late President Mainassara Baré’s right to life and physical integrity was violated to the highest degree, since he was killed. Now, it is established that it was the duty of the Republic of Niger to ensure his protection, in his capacity as President of the Republic. Manifestly, the Republic of Niger failed in its duty. Consequently, the Court finds that omission and holds that the Republic of Niger must be sanctioned. » (§71) 12