“it is mindful that its function in terms of protection does not stop at taking note of human rights violation otherwise the exercise of such function would make no meaning to the victim who would in the final analysis be protected and provided with no relief”. In the above case this Court made Orders against the Respondent directing it to take certain measures to ensure performance of its obligations as contracted for under the relevant laws. In the light of the foregoing analysis, this Court hereby grants the Applicant’s reliefs 4, 5 and 6 as prayed for. DECISION For the reasons stated above, the Court, adjudicating in a public hearing, after hearing both parties, and their submissions duly considered in the light of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international human rights instruments, and also the Protocol on the Court as amended and the Rules of Court, herby declares as follows: As regards the Parties: i. Struck out the name of the 2 Applicant from the suit upon application by the Applicants; As to jurisdiction of the Court: ii, Adjudges that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit to examine the alleged human rights violation by the Applicant; As to Locus Standi the Applica iii, Adjudges that the Plaintiff ha s the /ocus standi in a representative capacity having instituted the action in the public interest irrespective of the anonymity of the victims; 31