voluntary interveners have all been recognised as being sons and daughter of the late Head of State, and, as such, they have both quality and interest to act before the Honourable Court, in seeking reparation for the prejudice they suffered owing to the assassination of their father. Hence, the Court grants the interveners leave to join the main case brought by their mother; consequently, there is need to declare their Application for intervention as admissible. c) On the objection as to admissibility drawn from the non – exhaustion of local remedy In its Memorial in defence, the Defendant State raised a preliminary objection as to admissibility of the case, on the grounds that Plaintiff/Applicant did not exhaust local remedy, before bringing her case at the ECOWAS Court of Justice; In support of this objection, Defendant argued that pursuant to the legal applicable before the Court, especially Article 10 of the Supplementary Protocol of 19 January 2005, the human rights violation cases that can be brought before the said Court are those for which the victim must have initially taken before the competent national courts, and not having satisfaction for her claims; However, and contrary to the allegations made by the Defendant State, the provisions of Article 10 of the 2005 Protocol do not impose any obligation whatsoever on the victim of human rights violation to exhaust local remedy before bringing his case before the ECOWAS Court of Justice; The Court has recalled in many instances that within the purview of the provisions referred to, admissibility of a human rights violation case is to meet two cumulative 10