politically-centered activities for which they are registered either as political parties or organisations with the mandate to carry out advocacy, promotion, outreach or support for engagement in participation in government or other associated politically based activities. In the absence of this vital and determinate information, the Court is unable to determine that the said ban negatively impacted the realization of the mandate of the Applicants. 81. In this wise, The Court aligns with the defense of the Respondent in Document 3 page 7 paragraph 6 when they pleaded that “It is indisputable that the restrictions in the Order relate to demonstrations of a political nature and in no way concern the activities recognised to the applicants (who, it is worth noting, are not political parties), nor do they oppose the expression of their activities or the exercise of their recognised rights.’ 82. The Applicants having failed to prove the causal link between the alleged violation of their right to freedom of expression and the ban on political demonstration, they have a fortiori failed to prove that they are victims who suffered damages from the action of the Respondent in banning political demonstration. The Court agrees with the Respondent when they pleaded in Document 3 page 6 “that the Applicants who allege to be victims do not demonstrate case of violation of their rights no claim that they had suffered as a result of the restrictions of the Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011. 83. Since the Court has held that the Applicants have failed to prove their locus standi to initiate this action, a further examination of the contested 26