whilst the same matter has been instituted before another international court for adjudication. 31.It is imperative to state at this point that while Article 10(d) (i) and (ii) are statutory provisions enshrined in the Protocol for the determination of the admissibility of an application therein, they are not exhaustive as certain facts of the Application may present a need for further examination of its admissibility outside the enshrined provision. One of such requirements relates to the authorization or mandate to act in a representative action lack of which renders the Application inadmissible. 32.Thus while the Application has been declared to be in compliance with the provision of Article 10(d) (i) and (ii) of the Supplementary Protocol, it is still necessary to determine the competence of the Application as it concerns authorization or mandate to act. 33.The cardinal rule on access to the Court is that only direct victims of human rights violations can access the Court for relief for the violation of their human rights. See Article 10(d) (i) and (ii) of the Supplementary Protocol 2005: “Access to the Court is open to…d) individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights...” In essence, direct victims alleging violation of their rights with interest that is direct, personal and certain are the only parties inherently qualified to seek remedy for such violation which ordinarily cannot be transferable to another individual or organisations. ODAFE OSERADA V. ECOWAS COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, ECOWAS PARLIAMENT & ECOWAS COMMISSION, ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/08 @ 27. 11