stipulates the jurisdiction of the Court with Article 9 (4) of the said 2005 Protocol being the most relevant and it provides: “The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State.” 26.This Court has in its flourishing jurisprudence held that the mere allegation that there has been a violation of human rights in the territory of a member state is sufficient to justify its jurisdiction on the dispute, surely without any prejudice to the substance and merits of the complaint which has to be determined only after the parties have been given the opportunity to present their case, with full guarantees of fair trial. See SERAP v. FRN & 4 Others ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/14. 27.Also in Kareem Meissa Wade v. Republic Of Senegal, ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/13, at pg. 259 Para. 95 (3), this Court held that: “Simply invoking human rights violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case.” See also Bakare Sarre v Mali (2011) CCJELR pg. 57 and Dr. George S. Boley v The Republic Of Liberia & 3 Ors. ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/19. 28.The claim of the Applicant is premised on a plethora of allegation of violation of his rights as listed in paragraph 13 iv supra. In line with the above jurisprudence of the Court vis-à-vis the facts of the present application, it is our view, that the Court has the requisite competence to determine the application submitted by the Plaintiff same been premised on allegation of human rights contained in his initiating documents. ii. Access to court 29.In determining persons who can access the Court, Article 10 (d) grants access to: 11