It is predicated on the doctrine of sovereignty and equality of States in international law. This rule allows states to use their internal legal mechanisms including constitutional procedures to solve their own internal problems before international mechanisms can be invoked. However, it is also the rule that where such internal mechanisms or remedies are either nonexistent, or unduly or unreasonably prolonged or where it is devoid of providing effective relief, resort to such measures as a condition precedent to the presentation of international claims will not be required. Similarly, the rule can be expressly or impliedly made inapplicable by the provisions of a treaty. Articles 9(4) and 10(d) of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol of this Court (the basis of its human rights jurisdiction) provides as follows; The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any member State. With regard to access, Articles 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol also provides for the conditions for the admission of human rights claims before the Court. Namely, the application must not be anonymous and must not be pending before another International court for adjudication. Exhaustion of local remedies is not a sine qua non for the presentation of claims before this Court. As admitted even by the 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants, citing the case of Ocean King Nigeria LTD Vs. Republic of Senegal, the Court has consistently maintained that an applicant in cases of human rights violation brought before 11