person under the exceptions earlier identified, the Court will not proceed to elaborate further on this issue save to find that the Charter and the UDHR are applicable to the instant case and it so holds. The objection of the Respondent is hereby dismissed. Issue 5 - Whether the Respondent violated the right of property of the Applicant under Article 14 of the Charter and 17 of the UDHR. 54. Article 14 of the Charter provides as follows; “The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws.” Art 17 of UHDR provides as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property Analysis of the Court. In determining whether the Respondent violated this right, the facts must establish the following: a) That the Applicant has proved a property right or possession of the said land. b) That there was an interference with the possession by the Respondent. c) That the interference was for public purpose. d) That the interferences was in accordance with the appropriate laws. a) Proof of property right or possession of the said land by the Applicant. 55. The hallmark of a violation of property is proof of ownership. Every applicant whether a natural or legal person must be able to demonstrate the existence of a proprietary right over the property at stake in order to qualify as a victim under the Charter. The Applicant averred that between 2003 and 2011 he was granted series of authorization to set up a general education establishment and was allocated parcels of land in Niamey to that effect. In 18