For further emphasis, Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol of 2005 relating to this Court provides that: Access to the Court is open to individuals on application for relief for the violation of their rights and such application should neither be anonymous nor be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication. The above provisions are clear and unambiguous requiring no further rigorous interpretation. LORD GRIFFITH has correctly stated the position in the English case of PEPPER Vs. HART (1993) ALL E.42 at 50 that; “The days have long passed when the Court adopted a strict constructionist view on the interpretation which required them to adopt the literal meaning of the language, the Court now adopts a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true purpose of the legislation and is prepared to look at much extraneous material that bears upon the background against which the legislation was enacted”. LORD WENSLEYDALE in GRAY Vs. PEARSON (1857) 6 HLC 61 at 106 equally opined that in construing written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the word is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further. 29