24. They contended that the Applicant did not suffer any loss of reputation, but while assuming without conceding that if any, same has now been cleared by the judgment of acquittal. The Defendants maintained that it was not true that the 3rd Defendant and in fact all the other Defendants were negligent in regard to the vessel MT Capbreton, because according to the law in which the Applicants were judged, which is that of Miscellaneous Offenses Act, Section 3 sub-see 17 (b) of the said law, provided for the confiscation of the said vessel by the Federal Republic of Nigeria after condemnation. Consequently, they concluded that while the said vessel was lying in anchorage while the trial was on going, it was in the custody of the trial court and thus the Applicants cannot attribute to the negligence on the part of the Defendants. 25. They contended that it is trite law when a plaintiff is seeking the court to award special damages and interest, the plaintiff must furnish proofs which must go through rigorous verification; but that in this case, no written or other kind of evidence was produced as proof and the claim for anticipated earnings is not only speculative but a vain venture. They relied on several jurisprudence especially that of SHELL PETROLEUM DEV CO. NIG LTD v. TIEBO VII (1996) 4 NL WR pt 445 PP 622 - 743 at 622 Q 663 ratio 5, 10 and 11; and AG Fed vs. AIC (2000) NLWR pt 675 PP 229 -449 at P 296 Ratio 1, to declare that the courts are not charitable establishments as to award damages and interest as claimed by the Applicants. 26. Finally, the Defendants submitted that the principle relating to privy of contract shall apply in this case and that consequently, since they are not privy to the contract of employment between the Applicants and their employer, they cannot be held liable pursuant to the said contract. The Defendants relied on the case of AG FEDERATION v. AIC (2000) NWLR pt 675 PP 229-449, page 298 ratio 3. Consideration of the Arguments by the Court 27. After having considered the facts of the case and the arguments raised for determination between parties, the Court summoned up the various contending legal issues in line with Article 10 (d) [sic] and Article 9 (4) [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05); especially when these legal issues deals with the provisions granting the Applicants access to the Court on the one hand, and on the other hand those dealing with the competence of the Court on issues bothering on Human Rights. In this regard, the Court shall answer the questions drawn from the arguments by the parties as stated here under: i) The action of the Applicant is it statute barred by virtue of Article 9 (3) [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court so as to make the Court have its jurisdiction ousted? ii) Whether the detention of the Applicants by the Defendants from the 1st December 2003 to 1st March 2004 was lawful and amounts to infringement of the Applicants' Human Rights as entrenched in the Universal Declaration of Human Right and in the African Charter on Human and peoples' Rights to which reference is made in Cap A9, LFN 2004 and section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. iii) Whether the suit of criminal procedure against the Applicants by the Defendants on the 2nd of March 2004 till 30th November 2005 were malicious, unlawful and void and amount to infringement of their Human Rights pursuant to Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and also section 35 of the Constitution of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? iv) Whether the refusal of the Defendants to compensate the Applicants for the said spoliation and dispossession amounts to the infringement of their rights as stated in Article 21 (2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. v) Whether the parading of the Applications before the international press as vandals and thieves of Nigerian crude oil is in the circumstances of this case, the destruction of their reputation as seamen and thus an infringement of their rights to the dignity of their human persons as entrenched by virtue of Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and peoples' Rights. vi) Whether the arguments developed by the Defending party on the effect of privy of contract between the parties can defeat the claim for loss of employment and wages attached thereto and the damages and 9