produce a power of attorney on victims’ behalf to represent them. Additionally, the jurisprudence of the Court on the issue of NGO standing applies to the present objection. 75. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. iii. Objection based on non-identification of victims 76. The Respondent State alleges that the Applicants filed the Application on behalf of the Association of Victims and all the victims of the toxic waste dumping, whereas the Application was supposed to be filed by the individuals on their own behalf. Furthermore, the Respondent State avers that not all the victims of the toxic waste are members of the Association of Victims. 77. The Respondent State considers that the present Application should have been personalised and individualised. * 78. On their part, the Applicants affirm that they are human rights NGOs with observer status before the Commission. They further argue that they have standing to bring cases before the Court insofar as the Respondent State deposited, on 19 June 2013, the Declaration by virtue of which it accepts the jurisdiction of the Court to receive applications from individuals and NGOs. *** 79. The Court notes that the Applicants' allegations fall within the scope of public interest litigation insofar as the contested legal provisions concern all citizens whose interests are directly affected.20 20 Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (Merits) (14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34, § 1. 21