113. Therefore, the cause of action, substantiated in an alleged violation of human rights, must be in a necessary relationship with the right of action as established by law. 114. Article 9 (4) of the Additional Protocol of 2005 established that the “The Court has jurisdiction to determine the cases of human rights violations that occur in any Member State.” 115. In terms of access to the Court, the Article 10 (d) of the same Protocol establishes that “Can access the Court (...) d) Anyone who is a victim of human rights violations. 116. In the instant case, as we have seen, the facts relied on by the Applicant and which constitute the cause of action, allegedly occurred between April 1993 to December 22, 1994 and March 1996, a period well long before the legal attribution of human rights jurisdiction to this Court. 117. This means that it is up to the Court to find out if its jurisdiction may rule on facts that occurred before the date of entry into force of the aforementioned Additional Protocol of 2005. 118. It is recalled that jurisdiction in matters of human rights violations was conferred on this Court by Article 9 of Additional Protocol A/SP.1/05 of 2005, which amended Protocol A/P1/7/91 on the Court, which entered into force provisionally on January 19, 2005 with the signature of the Signatory Heads of Member States (including the signature of the Head of State of the Togolese Republic) and definitively into force after its ratification by at least nine (9) of the signatory States. 119. And as it results from article 28 of the VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES “Unless a different intention is evident from the treaty, or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to a previous act or fact or to a situation that has ceased to exist before the entry into force of the treaty, in relation to that part.” 20