Applicant's Submission 8 6 . The Applicant submits that the Communication filed before it clearly indicates the authors as CEMIRIDE, MRGI and OPDP, on behalf of the Ogiek Community, and that their contact details are clearly provided. 87. The Appl icant further submits that it filed the Application before the Cou rt pursuant to Arti cle 5(1) (a) of the Protocol, which entitles it to do so against a State which has ratified the Charter and the Protocol. The Rules of Procedure of the Commission (201 0) provide, inter alia, that it may seise the Court "on grounds of serious and massive violations of human rights". The Applicant also argues that seizure of the Court by the Commission may occur at any stage of the examination of a Communication if the Commission deems it necessary. The Court's Assessment 88. The Court reiterates that pursuant to Article 5(1) (a) of the Protocol, the Commission is the legal entity recognised before this Court as an Applicant and is entitled to bring this Application. Since the Commission , rather than the original complainants before the Commission, is the Applicant before this Court, the latter need not concern itself with the identity of the original complainants before the Commission in determining the admissibility of the application. Accordingly, the contention that the original complainants did not disclose the identity of aggrieved members of the Ogieks lacks merit. Therefore, the original complainants' observer status and whether or not they were mandated to represent the Ogiek population before the Commission are also immaterial to the Court's determination of the Applicant's standing to file this Application before this Court. 89. The Court consequently concludes that the Respondent's objection on this point lacks merit and is dismissed. 24 /-7