conditions, which are: the said case should neither be anonymous nor be taken before another international Court of competent jurisdiction, and this is not so, in the instant case. For this singular affirmation of the Court, which was made in the judgment dated 8 July 2011, « Oceanking Nigeria Ltd v. Republic of Senegal » thus: « The Court decided in a plethora of jurisprudence, notably in the cases of « Prof. Etim Moses Essien v. Republic of The Gambia (…Judgment of 29 October 2007), « Musa Saidykhan v. Republic of The Gambia (…Ruling of 19 December 2010) and « Hadidjatou Mani Koraou v. Republic of Niger » that exhaustion of local remedy does not constitute a prior fulfillment before bringing a human right violation case before it. Consequently, Plaintiff/Applicant does not need to exhaust local remedy before filing his case at the Court » (§41). It then follows that the objection raised as to inadmissibility drawn from failure to exhaust of local remedy is ill - founded. As to merit On its merit, the case filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant is well – founded on two main pleas: the violation of the right to life and the violation of the right to fair hearing. a) On the plea of the violation of the right to life The Court holds that the obligation to preserve the right to life makes it binding on the State to ensure, particularly the security of persons. Thus, this is a positive obligation that every citizen must enjoy, but, which takes another dimension when it is to be applied to certain categories of persons, who, due to their peculiar situation, such as being exposed to threat, or the risk of having the physical integrity of their persons infringed upon, should have the 11