The deliberation of the assembly on immunity, as a rule, takes the form of resolution (as proceeds in the Defendant State) - This resolution is a legal-constitutional act with a political nature, as it represents the exercise of a faculty directly conferred by the Constitution that defines its requirements and its object. Thus, this is an act of relationship between two organs of sovereignty (National Assembly and the Court) that represents in practice a conditioning of the Judiciary by the Parliament, with scope beyond the mere procedural effects, as it configures as an instrument for the affirmation and independence of the legislative power, and is therefore on the same level as legislative acts coming from a sovereign body or a supreme State body, with an individual and concrete nature, similar in their content to administrative acts. Parliamentary immunity, either the national (of the concerned State Member) or the Community (ECOWAS) immunity enjoyed by the applicant is not a personal privilege of the Member of Parliament, but prerogatives or guarantees granted to Parliament Members with a view of ensuring them the protection and independence necessary for the performance of their duties. Therefore, they are ultimately aimed at preserving the dignity, integrity and independence of Parliaments as a whole, vis-à-vis other State bodies or any other authorities. Therefore, it appears that the parliamentary immunity itself does not constitute a human right. However, violations of parliamentary immunities may lead to violations of human rights provided for in international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, equality under the law and fair trial. (See Conclusions OF ADVOCATE GENERAL NIILO JÄÄSKINEN delivered on 9th June 2011 (1) on the Proceedings C-163/10 of the European Court of Justice). In this case, none of these or other human rights have been claimed by the applicant. 13