63. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the instant Application. VI. ADMISSIBILITY 64. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Application on the basis of grounds which are not provided for in Article 56 of the Charter. 65. The Court will rule on these objections before considering those under Article 56 of the Charter, if necessary. A. Objections to admissibility not provided for in Article 56 of the Charter 66. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises preliminary objections to the admissibility of the Application on the grounds that: i) the Applicants lack locus standi; ii) the Applicants did not provide a power of attorney from the victims to represent them before the Court; iii) the Applicants did not identify the said victims; and iv) certain violations are raised for the first time before this Court. i. Objection based on lack of locus standi 67. The Respondent State affirms that, in the present case, the Applicants do not sufficiently demonstrate their interest and the Application should be declared inadmissible. 68. The Applicants assert that as human rights NGOs they have locus standi in the public interest insofar as they bring this case in the name and on behalf of the Association of Victims. *** 19