Further, the Court will rely on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of TSALIKIDIS and OTHERS v. GREECE (2017) NO. 73974/14 where it was held that evidence of relationship for claiming as victims is not relevant if they are immediate family. The facts in the instant case denote relationship; all facts not challenged are deemed admitted, since the Respondent failed to disprove the fact of the Applicants being children of the deceased. The Court finds that the Applicants are indirect victims of the violation of the right to life because they did not suffer the direct deprivation of the right to life. Having found the Applicants as indirect victims of the violation of the right to life, the Court will briefly reason why they also consider them equipped with the relevant capacity. Pursuant to Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol grants access to: “Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: i. Not be anonymous; nor ii. Be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication.” Therefore, what the law demands is that said victims on a claim for violation of their human rights can approach the Court in that capacity pursuant to Article 10 (d). In the case of CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT v MAMADOU TANDJA & REPUBLIC OF NIGER (20111) ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/11 @ page 27 the CCJ held that: “Cases shall be brought before the Court by natural or legal person endowed, within the framework of their national laws, with the required legal capacity, and who, in addition, shall justify their condition of being victim…” The Court therefore holds that the Applicants are indirect victims who have the requisite capacity, according to law, to bring a claim on their own behalf for the violation of human rights. 9