16. He maintained that the Applicant was pushed outside and severely beaten up; that he sustained bruises on his face, resulting in blood clotting on his left eye, and he tendered in evidence Exhibit "B" which shows that he received medical attention at Iduna Specialist Hospital Ltd. on 21 January 2008 from Dr. Jaafar Kadiri (refer Exhibit "C"), and that Mr. Daouda Garba had no other choice than to have recourse to a lawyer in order to plead his cause. 17. He relied on Article 4(g) of the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS and on Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights in arguing that his request sufficiently demands that he be remedied for the violations of his rights. 18. On these last arguments, Defendant responded and averred that the facts as adduced by Counsel for Mr. Daouda Garba, are neither established nor proven and added that certain evidences must be removed from the case-file because they are inadmissible in law, and asked in particular, that the photograph showing the face of Mr. Daouda Garba must not be taken into account during proceedings, for it can easily be manipulated. 19. The Defendant added that the fact that Mr. Daouda Garba's passport was not stamped means that he did not pass through the Benin border and moreover, he did not provide any name of the Nigerian or Benin Immigration Officers so that they can be heard in court, upon the orders of the Court. 20. The Defendant equally contended that the Applicant did not take the trouble to report his case to the judicial authorities of Benin or even to the Embassy of Nigeria in Benin, in order to raise the issues complained of in his Application. 21. The Defendant considered therefore that there are doubts surrounding the medical report of Dr. Jaafar Kadiri, and asserted that since it was not signed, this report has no legal value; that the report did not also indicate the link between Mr. Daouda Garba's injuries and the facts adduced by him in his Application. 22. The Defendant concluded that there was a lot of doubt on the authenticity of the attack which the Applicant claimed was carried out against him by the Benin Immigration Officers. The Defendant also asked the Court to dismiss, purely and simply, the orders sought by Mr. Daouda Garba in his Application, in all its intents and purposes, and ask him to bear the cost of the proceedings. III. Analysis of the Court As Regards Competence of the Court 23. The Republic of Benin raised the objection regarding incompetence of the Court on the grounds that: firstly Article 33(a) of the Rules of the Court was violated, in that the address of the Applicant was not indicated in his Application, and that secondly, Article 10(d) × Access to the Court is open to the following: d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: of the Supplementary Protocol on the Court was violated because Mr. Daouda Garba's Application was anonymous. As Regards Violation of Article 33(a) of the Rules of the Court 24. The Republic of Benin blamed the Applicant for violating Article 33(a) of the Rules of the Court which provides that "An application ... shall state ... the name and address of the applicant." The Republic of Benin therefore considered that a mere indication of his place of work cannot be substituted for the address of the Applicant. 25. The Defendant contended that the requirement for the address of the Applicant as provided for in Article 33(a) of the Rules of the Court will enable one to identify the Applicant and that Mr. Daouda Garba did not only fail to indicate his address but did not indicate his status and place of work, the town where he resides and his country of origin, namely Nigeria. 26. On these two points, the Court considers, on its part, that the mere absence of the citation of the Applicant's address on his Application cannot constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the Application, and that in this respect, the Court dismisses that argument. 27. The Defendant considered that the non-signing of the Application by the Applicant constitutes a violation of Article 10(d) 4