v. That the Defendant has no legal obligation to secure the release of the Plaintiff having been convicted of a crime unrelated to the exercise of his functions as a Consular officer. The mere fact that the past Government of the Defendant exhibited benevolence in seeking the release of the Plaintiff as evidenced by the admission of the Plaintiff himself shown by the Note verbal attached to his application (Exhibit P/6) places no obligation on the current Government of the Defendant as a matter of law to secure the release of the Plaintiff. vi. That while the Defendant has a duty to protect its Consular and Diplomatic Agents, this obligation only extends to cases where the agent is held to answer for acts done in the exercise of his or her official function. This does not apply to the Plaintiff. vii. That the ECOWAS Convention on Privileges and Immunities which the Plaintiff relies on is only applicable in Member States of ECOWAS. The issue of the Plaintiff’s incarceration, the subject matter of the current proceedings is an issue between the Defendant and the Government of the United States which is not a member of ECOWAS. viii. That none of the action or inaction of the Defendant has violated the Plaintiff’s right. That Articles 2, 3,4,5,6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights relied upon by the Plaintiff does not support his case. The Defendant therefore urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Plaintiff. 5. ANALYSIS OF THE CASE OF THE PARTIES. At the end of pleadings, the Court asked the parties to address it on the import of Article 88 of the Rules of this Court on the propriety of this case. The Parties complied with the request. However, the Court opines that the case can be decided fairly and fully without recourse to the submission of the parties. p. 14