a Admissibility of the Application 34, Evidently, all the arguments brought forth by the Federal Republic of Nigeria on their merits aim at contesting the admissibility of the Application filed by Alimu Akeem. The Court will now examine each of these arguments, namely (i) that the Applicant is under obligation to have recourse to the preliminary procedures made available to him under the domestic law of Nigeria (ii) that the proceedings instituted against him is of a criminal nature, Court has no jurisdiction to re-examine (i) 178 by the national courts. As to obligation to have recourse to preliminary made available by the domestic law of Nigeria Republic 35. The Federal 148, decisions made and (iii) that the and 183 procedures relies essentially on the provisions of Sections Armed Forces Act. Section 148 sanctions a criminal of Nigeria of the procedure before the military courts. Section 183 complements it and provides for appeal mechanisms. As for Section 178, it provides for the Armed Forces personnel, administrative channels of redress against decisions of superior officers. Evidently, the procedures provided for in Sections 148 and 178 are not of the same nature. Sew . 36. The Court will therefore examine this point of law regarding Bigs inadmissibility in the light of the provisions of Sections 148 and 183 and other relevant sections of the Armed Forces Act, as applicable to criminal proceedings before Nigerian martial courts. STs In that regard, the Court notes that in line with Article 148(3), the findings of the Court Martial shall become final only when they are confirmed by the competent authority. Thus, in as far as that confirmation was not made, the accused could not appeal his case or apply for review. Now, the Court finds that if the details provided by the Parties indicate that the matter was brought before the authority that is competent to confirm the findings, those same details do not indicate however that the required confirmatior. vhich would render the Court Martial’s decision as final, was made; ana this vacuum persisted for more than three years. The Court therefore holds that the Applicant was not availed the opportunity for seeking redress, as referred to above.