60. As we have seen, in terms of human rights violations, the jurisdiction of this Court is regulated by Articles 9 (4) and 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol on to the Court. 61. In this case, the Applicant maintains that the provisions of Section 24 of the 2015 Cybercrime Act violates the right to freedom of expression of its members and associates and that the continued enforcement of these provisions violates the rights of its members and associates to freedom of expression. 62. The Defendant State appears to intend to question the jurisdiction of this court to examine the national legislation of a Member State, namely its own. 63. Therefore, the question that arises is whether the Court can examine Section 24 of the Cybercrime Act to see whether such legislation contradicts and violates the rights of the Applicant's members and associates as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, African Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or others, of which the Defendant State is a party. 64. In this regard, this Court in the case Hissien Habré Vs. Senegal7, stated that: “That to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear a case, it has to examine if the issue submitted deals with the rights enshrined for the benefit of the human person and arising from the international or community obligation of the state as human rights to be observed, promoted, protected and enjoyed and whether the alleged violations were committed by a member state of the community.” (page 65). And in the case Hadijatou Mani Koraou v. Republic. Of Niger.8 66. Yet, in this case Federation of African Journalist v. The Republic of the Gambia, this Court, based on its own jurisprudence, reiterated that “it will not examine the laws of Member Sates in abstract since it is not a constitutional court but, once human rights violation are alleged, it invokes its jurisdiction to examine whether or not there has been violation.” (page 31) 7 8 CCJERL ( 2010) pag. 65. CCJELR (2004-2009 ) pag.232 §60. 16