By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own rights, its rights to ensure, in the person of its subject respect for the rules of International law. Thus, an individual cannot force his State of nationality to take up a claim for injury done to him against another State. In fact in Kaunda vs. President of South Africa (Supra), the Court rightly stated that diplomatic protection is not recognized in international law as human right, but a prerogative of State to be exercised at its discretion. The plaintiff as earlier noted referred to the provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to buttress the fact that his right has been violated but none of these texts make provisions for such right. The right to diplomatic protection is not a human right as the concept is understood, and it is not enshrined in any international text on Human rights. The Court finds that when the Plaintiff cites a text, he refers to provisions which deal with legally recognized rights like, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of association, the right to a fair hearing and fair trial, the right to the security or physical integrity of the person etc. and not provisions which deal with a right which an individual may claim in order to demand from his State, as of right, to intervene in his favour. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s argument on this plank must fail and the Court so holds. On issue N0.2, it is obvious from the evidence submitted, that the Plaintiff’s case also hinges on the alleged fact that: p. 17