Joao Vieira, Vieira Junior and Thirzah de Pina Bernado Vieira, as could be seen on the Birth Certificates duly issued by the Authorities and produced before the Court, during the adversarial procedure. This fact was never contested by the State of Guinea - Bissau. The Court holds that this fact really constitutes the proof of a link, which, on its own, constitutes the ground to establish that the Plaintiff/Applicant sufficiently has an interest to act. In the instant case, not only were the children born of the couple, a fact that the State of Guinea - Bissau has never contested, yet, there was never proof brought to the attention of the Honourable Court that there had never been a union, even on a temporary basis, between Plaintiff/Applicant and late Nino Vieira, while Defendant only laboured to allege that the assassination of the Head of State took place « in the presence » of his « legitimate » wife. This sole circumstance, assuming it was true, is not certainly sufficient to contest the locus standi. Moreover, the Court wishes to declare that it is not bound by the National Legislation of the State of Guinea – Bissau, which, as it were, has declared « null and void » a possible « marriage » between Plaintiff/Applicant and late President Vieira. The ground used here is, of course that of international law, as enshrined in conventions and other obligations to which the State of Guinea – Bissau has subscribed to. The reference to the national law to examine a principle of a fundamental right is not in any way pertinent here. Also, the same principle abhors that some moral considerations or value judgments should be used to examine the resolve of two free and consenting persons in their marriage. Rather than being subjective, the Court has adopted an objective view point in the instant case: it has limited itself to noting that there existed a union, or a simple link, an affective link, which is attested to by the 8