doubt once the facts adduced are related to human rights as indicated by its own case law. The Defendant in challenging the competence of the court placed reliance on national authorities. This court though may be persuaded by such decisions, it is not bound by them. Moreover, the Plaintiff in bringing his application relied on international texts which recognize, protect and promote the rights which he claims to have been violated. By virtue of its ratification, the Defendant is treaty bound to respect and protect those rights enshrined in these international instruments. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs Certificates are his personal property and therefore falls under the right to property internationally and nationally guaranteed. Other rights which flow from the alleged seizure are also internationally guaranteed and thus invoke the jurisdiction of the court. There is indeed no doubt that by acts affecting his internationally guaranteed rights, the application filed by the Plaintiff is admissible and same falls within the jurisdiction of this court. 2. WHETHER FROM THE TOTALITY OF FACTS PUT FORWARD, THE PLAINTIFF IS CAUGHT UP BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION. For an action to be instituted before a Court, parties involved must be seized with the rules and Protocols of Court in order to comply with the provisions governing the institution of actions as well as the statute of limitation. This enables parties institute their action timeously and prevent the possibility of not being heard on the grounds of being statute barred. However, the facts and circumstances of each 16