The Article 9 (4) of the Protocol relating to the Court, as amended by the Supplementary Protocol of 2005, provides that the Court has jurisdiction to hear cases of human rights violations occurring in the Member States of the Community. Article 10 of the same Protocol states in turn that individuals may consult the Court in order to obtain compensation for human rights, provided that the request is not anonymous and that the same case is not pending before another competent international court. Therefore, the requirements described above are fulfilled, because the request is not anonymous and there is no evidence that the same case is pending in another international court. Therefore, considering the facts claimed by the applicant as violations of his human rights, this court is then competent to hear the case. On the questions raised by the defendant: a) The plea of inadmissibility of the application initiating proceedings The defendant went on to allege that the application must not be admissible since it does not comply with the requirements of Article 33 (2) and (3) and Article 28 (3) of the Rules of Procedure of this Court. The applicant replied clamming that his address was clearly stated on the petition page, and that he declared his place of service within the jurisdiction and in Abuja, where the court has its seat, that he duly attached his certificate of order, which is at the Court registry. So, in this specific case, the Court does not accept the argument presented by the defendant. See why, After examining the application initiating proceedings (see page 9), it was found that it contains the address chosen by the applicant at the seat of this Court. 12