in pursuance of public interest, requires a mandate to act. The Court however has no record of any authorization by these alleged inmates to the said NGO. 93.The Court at this stage must reaffirmed as earlier stated that human right is victim-centered - NOSA EHANIRE OSAGHAE & 3 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA- Supra. Therefore, victims of human right violations are the core object of protection of the ECOWAS Court of Justice as well as other similar international human rights Courts. This is achieved by holding Members States accountable to the treaty obligations signed and providing redress to victims of violations occasioned by them. 94. Consequently, in protecting such redress and ensuring that their vulnerability is not exploited, a safeguard is put in place to ensure that individuals or organisations that represent them do so in the best interest of the said victims. Therefore in a representative Application, it is imperative that the Court is convinced that the victims willingly and knowingly delegated to such individuals or organization their inherent rights to seek redress by themselves. Therein lies the import of the requirement for mandate to act and the mischief it seeks to cure. 95.As earlier stated, the Court has no record of any mandate from the said inmates, the importance of which as highlighted supra is not only imperative but equally mandatory. Lack of such mandate in the instant case is therefore grave as it renders the Application incompetent. This consequence has been affirmed in a plethora of decisions by the Court as in the case below where in further confirmation of a mandate as a legal document that gives full power to act, it held thus: “....in the absence of such mandate, the Collectif 29