of the Convention, upon the grounds that the Austrian authorities had refused to grant them their request for a licence for creating and setting up an internal radio and television cable network for running programmes which were to be restricted to issues relating to their common rights and the rights of their members. - In its Judgment of 20th November 1993, Series A, No 176, the European Court held that the Applicant possessed the status to enable it claim the rights in the provisions of Article 10 × Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. of the Convention and affirmed that the Court would fall into a trap it had to differentiate between natural persons and legal persons, for the purposes of that case. 27. From the foregoing examples, it could be deduced that legal persons can institute proceedings before a legal adjudicating body, for violation of rights guaranteed by instruments relating to human rights. 28. At ECOWAS, access before the Court by corporate bodies, for human rights violation, is invested in the provisions of Article 1(h) of the Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, which provides: "The rights set up in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other international instruments shall be guaranteed in each of the ECO WAS Member States; each individual or organisation shall be free to have recourse to the common or civil law courts, a court of special jurisdiction, or any other national institution established within the framework of an international instrument on Human Rights, to ensure the protection of his/her rights". 29. The Court holds that in application of the principle whereby in matters of human rights protection, whenever two measures tend to be applicable at the same time, primacy shall be accorded the measure granting greater protection; and in implementing its mandate on interpretation of the Community texts of ECOWAS; in the present circumstances, the Court declares that Article 10(d) × d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: i. Not be anonymous; nor ii. Be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication; of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol must be interpreted in accordance with the spirit and letter of Article 1(h) of Protocol A/SP1/12/01 of 21st December, 2001 on Democracy and Good Governance. 30. The Court consequently declares that the objection regarding inadmissibility as raised by the Defence, and concerning a defect in the status of the Applicant, is dismissed. As to the objection regarding inadmissibility allegedly arising from violation of the provisions on public order in the Ivorian civil law and violation of Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court 31. The Defendant Council of State contended that it was illegal for the Applicant to bring its case before the Court and that doing so violated the Ivorian civil law as well as Article 33(1) of the Rules of the Court. 32. The same Defendant contended, on one hand, that the citation "État de Côte d'Ivoire" has no legal effect, once in Ivorian law, any action brought before the judicial and arbitration bodies and before the national and international commissions, for the purpose of declaring that the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire either owes or is owed a sum of money, must be instituted by or against the Agent Judiciaire du Trésor, or otherwise be declared a nullity. 33. It added, on the other hand, that in the terms of the provisions of Article 33 (1) of the Rules of the Court, the Application before the Court must contain, among others indications, the designation of the party against whom the application is made. 34. The Court recalls, on this issue, that the ECOWAS Member States, as contracting parties of the ECOWAS Community law, or as guarantors for the implementation of the human rights recognised in the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS, are obliged to subscribe to these rights, and may in that regard be sued before the principal legal organ of ECOWAS, i.e. the Community Court of Justice. Consequently, the Court declares that an individual may bring proceedings against a Member State of the Community before the 6