31. Supposing even that the Applicants did indeed suffer a denial which is to be restored to them, or that they suffered any other harm as a result of a termination of the contract with Sierra National Airlines, such denial or prejudice may not necessarily be construed as “a human rights violation”, since this latter concept is more precise and makes reference to a specified catalogue of prerogatives. 32. From the foregoing, it shall be justified to dismiss the complaints filed by the Applicants against the Defendants as baseless. 33. In terms of involving Sierra National Airlines in the dispute between the Parties, the Court is always guided by its time-held traditional principles which has been guiding its jurisprudence. The Court has always held that human rights protection is the exclusive preserve of States, and the Court has thus expressed this position in numerous decisions it has had to make, including the one delivered on 8 November 2010 in Mamadou Tandja v. Republic of Niger, where it declared that, it is a general principle that procedures of human rights violation are brought against States, and not individuals. Indeed, that the obligation to respect and protect human rights lies on States. 34. Hence, Sierra National Airlines must be exonerated from every blame. On the claim of compensation made by Plaintiffs/Applicants 35. Whereas Plaintiffs/Applicants did not bring any proof, in support of their claim on the violation of their human rights, for which they could be victims; It follows that the Court shall reject their claim on compensation. 3- As to costs 36. Whereas Plaintiffs/Applicants have succeeded in their case, and that there is need to award costs, pursuant to the provisions of Article 66 of the Rules of procedure of the ECOWAS Court of Justice 11