positive, whether in the circumstances of the case, this Court can grant the reliefs sought by the Applicant. With regard to issue No.1, the Plaintiff claims that every citizen is entitled to protection by his State of origin whenever in a Foreign State. To buttress his argument, the Plaintiff cites two major international human rights instruments against the Defendant, namely; a. The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and political Rights and b. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In contemporary International law, diplomatic protection consists of the invocation by a State, through diplomatic action or other means of peaceful settlement, the responsibility of another State for an injury caused by an internationally wrongful act of that State to a national or legal person that is the national of the former State with a view to the implementation of such responsibility (see Article 1 of the International law Commission, Draft Article on Diplomatic Protection 2006). Although a State is under a duty to protect its nationals and it may take up their claims against other States, there is under International law, however no obligation for States to provide diplomatic protection for their nationals abroad (see the case of HMHK vs. Netherlands 94 ILR,P.342, Kaunda vs. President of South Africa 2004,2 ALC, 5). The right of Diplomatic protection is not a right of the individual but that of the State. Thus in Mavrommantis Palestine Concession case (P.C.I.J. series A No 2 1924) P.12. The Permanent Court of International Justice succinctly stated that; p. 16