establishing the existence of evidence of actual and concrete violations of the rights, and for which a Member State is liable for the Application to succeed. 46. However, guided by the utmost need to do justice in certain peculiar cases, the general principle of establishing an actual or concrete violations to succeed, has been widened in scope. The Court has established an exceptional principle that, the application will succeed in cases where the Court is strongly convinced that imminent violations could occur or where there is the risk of future violations, especially when there are reasonable and convincing indices for the probability of the realization of actions that are likely to violate human rights. 47. The Court has held this position in several of its judgments, for which three shall be recalled for the purpose of the instant case. In the case of HISSEIN HABRE v. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL (2010) CCJELR 71 @ §§ 45-47 the Court dealing with anticipatory breaches of human rights held as follows: “Indeed, the Applicant himself does not link the violation of his human rights to any concrete act, but to the demonstrated wish of the State of Senegal to try him afresh, and to apply the newly introduced offences in its penal law, so much so that, viewed from this angle, the Court can only deduce that the alleged violation is tied to a hypothesis, that is an abstract violation. To this effect, the Court, recalling its jurisprudence, in its judgment in the case of Hadijatou Mani Koraou v. The State of Niger, wherein it stated that its jurisdiction is not to determine cases of abstract violations, rather, real and concrete violations. The Court also relies on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (…), wherein it is stated that Article 34 of the European Convention of Human Rights does not allow 14