As earlier noted, the application of the local remedy rule can be expressly or impliedly excluded by a treaty and this appears to be what the 2005 Supplementary Protocol conferring human rights jurisdiction on the Court appears to have done. Accordingly, not having made provisions for particular conditions in respect of admissibility of an application, the Court cannot impose heavier ones these of. It is therefore unnecessary to over flog this issue of nonrequirement of exhaustion as a condition precedent to claim for human rights violations brought before this Court. From the arguments and contents of the statement of defense and legal arguments filed by the 2nd , 4th and 5th Defendants, it appears that the Court is being invited to over- rule itself on its position on the non- requirement of the exhaustion of local remedies. We are of the opinion that there is no cogent and convincing reason or circumstances adduced by the defendants to warrant such a course of action. In the same vein, the question on whether the pendency of the appeal against the Plaintiffs conviction is a bar to the present application is answered in the negative. The limits to this Court’s jurisdiction in an action against a member State for human rights violation are as contained in Article 10(d) above and as elucidated by the jurisprudence of this Court in the various cases cited above. These provisions are clear, lucid and unambiguous and cannot admit of any extraneous consideration. This Court has clearly stated that the 13