3) if a Staff of any Community Institutions, after having exhausted all avenues of administrative appeal. 40. Being those provisions that allow the access to the Court by individuals, the Applicant, as an individual, must prove that her case falls into one of the situations listed in 1, 2, and 3. 41. It is clear and without great difficulty that the Applicant 1s not an employee of any Community institution. In fact, she's nowhere near even to claim that status. Therefore, this excludes the application of the situation referred to in (3) which corresponds to sub-paragraph (e) of Article 10 of the Protocol. 42. Thus, the remaining possibilities that are left to the Applicant to have access to the Court are only two: to justify her complaint based on the provision of Article 1o(c); or to present her lawsuit as a complaint for violation of human rights in accordance with Article 10(d). 43. These two alternatives, invoked by the Applicant in her arguments, should be analyzed in order for the Court to determine whether the Applicant's situation falls at least into one of them. 44. Under Article 10(c) of the Protocol 2005, access to the Court is open to "individuals .... in proceedings for the determination of an act or inaction of a Community official which violates the rights of individuals !I 45. The wording of Article 1o(c) leaves clear from the outset that the main requirement for an individual to have access to the Court under that provision is that he or she should be the bearer of the right allegedly violated by the act or inaction of the Community or its official that is 12