reason of the harm or damages suffered arising from the ban on demonstration imposed by the contested Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011. The Court already deferred the examination of locus standi to the merit stage and maintain its stand. 58. The Court will however examine the Respondent’s objection under two headings: capacity as legal person to maintain an action on their own behalf for violation of their human rights, and capacity to maintain an action on behalf of the Senegalese people for violation of their human rights. a) Capacity as legal person to maintain an action on their own behalf for violation of their human rights. 59. An examination of the capacity of legal persons to bring an action for the violation of their human rights calls for further elaboration beyond the consensus of parties. It is undisputed that both Parties are ad idem that a legal person can bring an action for themselves or in a representative capacity for a group for the violation of human rights. This is a wellfounded principle which has been supported by a plethora of decisions by the Court. “Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and public spirited individuals can institute actions on behalf of a group of victims usually from a community or class of people based on common public interest to claim the violation of their human rights...” See THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF JAMA’A FOUNDATION & 5 ORS V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/20, PAGE 14-15. See also NOSA EHANIRE OSAGHAE & 3 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/17 PAGE 19. 19