22 defendant to collaborate with Euskalduna and award the vessel to same. with respect, that position is untenable at law. The defendant was not under any legal obligation to try and resolve a matter that had been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, through diplomatic channels. In any case, the dispute at hand was one between plaintiff and Euskalduna and not between plaintiff and the defendant. 71. The plaintiff pleaded that it was the defendant who sold their vessel, but defendant denied it. Thus the plaintiff assumed the burden of producing evidence since they asse1ied the affim1ative of the issue. However, there was no evidence adduced at the hearing that the defendant sold the vessel. The fact that a court in defendant's te1ritory awarded the vessel to Euskalduna did not per se make the defendant culpable. It was an order made in proceedings regularly conducted between two private companies to which the defendant was not a pmt-y before a court of competent jurisdiction. DECISION 72. On the preliminary procedure, the Court concludes that it is not a requirement of its texts to exhaust local remedies before an application could be filed before it in human rights cases. The court also decides that the acts of officials of the defendant are not subject to Article 10(c) of the amended Protocol. The court further decides that Article 10(d) of the 1991 Protocol, as amended, is not open to corporate bodies as victims of human rights abuse; that is open to only human beings. ' 73. In respect of the substantive issues, Whereas the Court has found that the plaintiff and Euskalduna de Pesca were the parties that contested all the proceedings before the Senegalese courts; Whereas the vessel \vas not awarded to the defendant herein; Whereas it was the plaintiffs failure to respect the decision of the Marine Merchant that eventually led to the final decision depriving them of the ownership of the vessel; Whereas the plaintiff was heard in the last proceedings; 22