 Whether it arises from international or community obligations of the state complained of, as human rights to be promoted, observed, protected, and enjoyed;  Whether it is the violation of that right which is being alleged. In BAKARE SARRE V MALI (2011) CCJELR pg 57 this court stressed that once the human rights allegedly violated involves international or community obligation of a member state, it will exercise its jurisdiction over the case. Also in SERAP V. FRN & 4 ORS, (2014) UNREPORTED, this court held that the mere allegation that there has been a violation of human rights in the territory of a member state is sufficient prima facie to justify the jurisdiction of this court on the dispute, surely without any prejudice to the substance and merits of the complaint which has to be determined only after the parties have been given the opportunity to present their case, with full guarantees of fair trial. See also SIKIRU ALADE V THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2012) unreported, where this Court held that an infringement on a persons’ liberty as alleged by the Plaintiff/Applicant would fall neatly under Article 9(4) of the Protocol of the Court. Applying the above decisions of this court to facts of the Plaintiffs’ application as presented, it is evident that this matter falls within the ambit of this court’s jurisdiction. The Defendant’s objection to the Court’s subject matter competence therefore fails. 26