49. In light of the this, the Court holds that it has the power to examine Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011 to determine their compliance or otherwise with the African Charter and other International Human Rights instruments to which the Respondent is signatory. The Preliminary objection of the Respondent in this wise is hereby dismissed. c) Lack of capacity of the Applicants being legal persons 50. The Respondent argued that in order to bring an action in accordance with Article 10 (d) of the Protocol “it is necessary to be a natural or legal person who must also justify, assuming that he is endowed with legal capacity with regard to his national legislation his status of victim” See Doc. 3 page 6. 51. In their response to the Respondent’s objection under this head, the Applicants argued that their status as legal persons does not render the Application inadmissible since the Court allows legal persons to bring actions before it for human rights violations, as decided in SERAP V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND OTHERS, ECW/CCJ/APP/07/10. 52. That according to the said judgment, the Court confirmed that NonGovernmental Organisations (NGOs) duly constituted in accordance with their national laws can bring actions in respect of human rights violation where the victim is not an individual but a large group of individuals or even an entire community. 53. The Applicants therefore urge that the Application should be declared admissible having met the requirements of the law. 17