application and whether the pleas in-law and evidence produced essentially go to establish such violation.” 73. The jurisdiction of this Court is governed by Article 9 of Protocol A/P1/7/91 on the Court, as amended by Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05. 74. Paragraph 4 of the said Article 9 provides that: “The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of human rights violations occurring in any member state.” 75. It is the case law of this Court that its jurisdiction cannot be called into question wherever the facts relied upon relate to human rights. (See the cases HISSÈNE HABRÉ v. REPUBLIQUE DU SENEGAL, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/RUL/03/2010, CCJRL (2010) p. 43, § 53-61; MAMADOU TANDJA v. REPUBLIQUE DU NIGER, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/10, CCJRL (2011) p. 105 ff.; PRIVATE ALIMU AKEEM v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, Ruling No. ECW/CCJ/RUL/05/11, CCJRL (2011) p. 121 ff.) 76. This position of the Court has been permanently reaffirmed in a plethora of cases, making it indisputable that in a case, the mere allegation of a violation of human rights is sufficient to trigger the jurisdiction of this Court and it will assume jurisdiction without necessarily examining the veracity of the allegation. (See the case DR. GEORGE S. BOLEY v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA & 4 ORS, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/19 §27). 77. Also, in relation to the said Article 9(4), this Court, in the case SAWADOGO PAUL & 3 ORS v. REPUBLIC OF BURKINA FASO, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/20 §21 stated that: “From the above provision, it is pertinent that two conditions must be met before the Court can exercise jurisdiction over an application brought before it for 14