violation confers the quality of victim on a Plaintiff/Applicant, whenever the specific circumstances of the case enable the court to establish the existence of convincing and reasonable indices for the realisation of the violation, which the Court has mandate to prevent. (§52) (…)It follows that Plaintiff/Applicant does not act to have a violation that it was a victim stopped; nevertheless, it can take advantage of the provisions of Article 10(d) of the Protocol on the Court, as amended, which open access to the Court to every individual who is a victim of human rights violation, owing to the fact that the alleged human rights violation is imminent and inevitable”. 50. The Court notes that in all the three cases recalled above, i.e. Hissein Habré v. Republic of Senegal, CDP v. Burkina Faso and Union Sociale Libérale v. Senegal, the common denominator is that the cases are grounded on the existence of risk of potential or imminent violation based on functional laws already in force, whose application would produce the effects of the alleged violations and that, there were likelihood that they would inevitably be applied. 51. The Court noted in Hissein Habre (supra) that “all steps for exceptional preparations, as enumerated by Mr. Hissein Habré show clearly that there are reasonable and convincing indices of the probability of the realisation of actions by the Defendant State against Mr. Hissein Habré, in order to try him, on the basis of the amended texts (…)” 52. In CDP case (supra), it was noted by the Court that “in the instant case, the alleged violation has no yet been committed, but could very soon be. Going by the indications provided to the Court, the electoral process is to open 18