3. That there is no action pending before another international Court in respect of the alleged breach of his right and 4. That there was no previously laid down law that led to the alleged breach or abuse of his rights and freedom from arbitrary arrest. Similarly, in Moussa Leo Keita vs. The Republic of Mali (2004), this Court also refused to assume jurisdiction where the Applicant did not identify the exact violation alleged or specified the particular right allegedly violated. Applying the principles established in the above cases, this Court is of the view that the Plaintiff in the instant case, has not identified the specific right violated by the Defendant in relation to him. He has purported to state that his rights under Articles 2, 3,4,5,6 and 7 of the African Charter on Peoples’ and Human Rights have been violated by the Defendant, but the right to Diplomatic or Consular protection is not one of the human rights recognized by those Articles. In this regard, the entire action of the Plaintiff is incompetent, must fail and is hereby dismissed. FOR THESE REASONS Adjudicating in a public session, after hearing both parties, in the first and last resort, THE COURT IN TERMS OF MERITS In regard to this Application holds that the Defendant has committed no human rights violation against the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff’s claim is hereby dismissed. AS TO COSTS ASK EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS COSTS. And the Following hereby append their signatures. p. 25