49. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that because she was not directly affected by the act of the President of the Court, the Applicant cannot be permitted to file a complaint against the same act pursuant to Article 10(c) of the Protocol of the Court. so. The same reasoning developed above to show the lack of legal capacity or locus standi of the Plaintiff to challenge an act of an ECOWAS Official that did not directly violate her rights or cause any harm to her, also applies if her case is analyzed as being filed under article 10(d) of the Protocol on the Court, the provision that allows individuals to lodge complaints for human rights violations. 51. In fact, as emphatically explained above, the Plaintiff was not in a situation in which her fundamental rights could have in any way been affected or harmed by the administrative decision of the President of the Court. 52. It is true that she invokes the violation of a set of rights enshrined in the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights. But the mere invocation of violation on those rights unaccompanied by any nexus between the act allegedly infringing them and the situation of the person claiming such violation is not sufficient to give the necessary capacity to lodge a complaint under article 10(d) of the Protocol on the Court. CONSEQUENTLY 53. Whereas the access to the Court is governed by the requirements laid down in Article 10 of the Protocol on the Court, as amended by the Supplementary Protocol A/SP/1/01/ 05. 54. Whereas Community citizens, as individuals, m accessing the Court against Community Institutions or their Officials have to show that their 14