21. It argues that in any case, the minutes of the family meeting is illegal for lack of approval by the courts, so that the power of attorney itself has no effect. 22. In reply, the Applicant contends that the objection should be overruled, arguing that the only requirements for an individual or an NGO to file an application with the Court against a State are that the said State should have ratified the Charter and the Protocol and deposited the Declaration, and the Applicant is not required to demonstrate any personal interest. 23. She further avers that she does not need a power of attorney to act on behalf of the victim’s estate. To this end, she produced a copy of her birth certificate as well as the minutes of the family meeting in which the names of her siblings appear which, according to her, prove their kinship to the victim. 24. The Applicant asserts that the Court is not bound by the restrictive domestic laws governing the validity of evidence and may determine that the evidence required under domestic law is not necessarily required before the Court. *** 25. The Court notes that under Article 5(3) of the Protocol, “The Court may entitle relevant Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission, and individuals to institute cases directly before it, in accordance with article 34 (6) of this Protocol”. 26. The Court notes that these provisions do not require the Applicant to have any other capacity whatsoever in order to act before the Court. The Court has previously held that the only requirement is that the Respondent State, in addition to being a party to the Charter and Protocol, must have 8