As to the Applicant's Status in the Action Brought 54. In his last brief, and in his Reply of 9 April 2008, the Defendant raised the issue of the Applicant's status in the action brought. He put forward that, being an emancipated 'wahiya' at the time of her Application, Hadijatou Mani Koraou was therefore not a slave anymore; that, on that score, she had come out of her condition of servitude; that she could have instituted proceedings before her emancipation; and that since she did not do so, her action had become ineffective and must be declared inadmissible on grounds of being unqualified to file the suit. 55. Such Preliminary Objection lately raised, must be declared inadmissible. Moreover, in regard to the provisions of Articles 9(4) × The Court has jurisdiction to determine case of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State. [sic] and 10 (d) × Access to the Court is open to the following: 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; [sic] respectively, of its Supplementary Protocol, "The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State", and "Access to the Court is open to ... individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights" 56. It must be emphasised that human rights, in being inherent to the human person, are "inalienable, irrevocable and sacred", and cannot therefore suffer any limitation whatsoever. As to the Pleas in the Merits 57. The Applicant filed several pleas alleging violation of her rights. In the first place, she pleaded that the Defendant did not take the necessary measures to guarantee its citizens the rights and freedoms proclaimed in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, thus violating Article 1 of the said charter. She contended that this violation derives from the other violations contained in the other pleas filed before the instant Honourable Court, in as much as Article 1 of the said African Charter makes it binding upon the States to respect such rights; and that in the terms of the cited article, "The Member States ... shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them". 58. The Applicant stated further that in accordance with the legislation of Niger, "The Republic of Niger shall be a constitutional State; it shall ensure equality of the law before all, without distinction of sex, social, racial, ethnic or religious origin ..." (Article 11 × Each person shall have the right to life, health, security, physical well-being, education, and instruction according to conditions established by law. of 1996 Constitution); "None shall be subjected to torture, abuses, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" (Article 12 × No person shall be subjected to torture, slavery, cruelty or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. of 1996 Constitution); "Any individual ... who shall be guilty of acts of torture, ... or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ... shall be punished in accordance with the law" (Article 14 of 1989 and 1992 Constitutions). 59. The Applicant pointed out that despite the existence of the aforementioned legislation, she faced sexually and socially based discrimination because she was held in slavery for almost 9 years; that after being emancipated, she was unable to fully enjoy her freedom despite her calls for justice, that she was put into detention, and that all these incidents contributed to the loss of her fundamental rights. She therefore asked that the Defendant be charged for violation of the various articles cited in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and demanded the adoption of new laws which are more protective of the rights of women against discriminatory customs. 60. As regards the Applicant's first plea-in-law, the Court finds that it does not have the mandate to examine the laws of Member States of the Community in abstracto, but rather, to ensure the protection of the rights of individuals whenever such individuals are victims of the violation of those rights which are recognised as theirs, and the Court does so by examining concrete cases brought before it. The Court indicates that other mechanisms are employed in the consideration of cases, such as the 7