37.The Court notes that it has jurisdiction to hear human rights violations arising from provisions of the ACHPR and the ICCPR, which the Applicant claims to be a victim of, as may have been perpetrated by the Republic of Niger, a Member State of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). 38.On the other hand, as regards the request before the Court, to examine the legality or otherwise of the charges made against him by the law-enforcement agencies of the Republic of Niger, the Court recalls that as far as that specific request is concerned, there is a wellestablished case law of the Court according to which applications brought against decisions of the national courts of Member States shall be considered to be outside the remit of the powers of the Court. 39.The Court held so in Case Concerning Jerry Ugokwe v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (7 October 2005). 40.In Case Concerning Al Hadji Hammani Tijani v. Federal Republic of Nigeria and Others (28 June 2007), the Court was of the view that: “Admitting this application will amount to this Court interfering in the criminal jurisdiction of the Nigerian Courts, without justification” §45 41.Similarly, in the judgment on Alimu Akeem v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (28 January 2014), the Court recalled that: “It is trite that in those cases where the subject-matter of the dispute essentially had to do with a re-examining of judgments already delivered by the domestic courts, the Honourable Court held that they be dismissed.” 42. Finally, in the judgment of CDS Rahama v. Republic of Niger (23 April 2015), the Court ruled that: “On the basis of the principle behind this standpoint, it can be deduced that the requests of CDS Rahama concerning the decisions of the local courts of Niger cannot be granted, the reason being that the Court has no remit for examining such decisions; and more generally, after decisions are made by the domestic courts of Niger, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine Translator : E. Nkansah 11