undertone, that are contained in a case, but, that the duty of the Court is to examine the facts, as presented before it, and try to find out, if really Plaintiff/Applicant’s rights are violated”. 73.Again in the case of CONVENTION DÉMOCRATIQUE SOCIALE, ALIAS CDS RAHAMA v. REPUBLIC OF NIGER (2015) Judgment NO. ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/15 (Unreported) @ pg. 11, it was held that: “The Court shall however recall, as it has done in other decisions, that the political intents or declarations of one party or the other have no relevance to its legal mandate. More precisely, its mandate, with regard to disputes on human rights violation, is limited to examining, in reality and in concrete terms, whether there is violation of a welldefined right, and the Court does not unnecessarily entangle itself with political motives and statements”. 74.It is obviously not in doubt that there were some political underpinnings in the impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from office of the Applicant by the Legislative Assembly of the Respondent which processes were governed solely by the domestic laws and procedures of the Respondent. 75.In the instant case, the House was the master of its own process, subject to the Constitution and the guaranteed procedural right of the Applicant. It is the view and has been the consistent position of this Court that States can decide or determine how they want to go about their internal affairs, including the procedure of impeachment based on the rules their legislatures consider to be in the best interest of the States concerned. 30