provided that the Member State in question is a party to the International human rights instrument(s) in which the violation can be derived or accommodated. Thus State responsibility is founded on an international obligation assumed by the State (see the cases of Bakery Sarre Vs. Republic of Mali (2011) CCJ 57, Mamadou Tandja Vs General Salou Djibo and Anor(2010) CCJ LR 109 and Hissen Habre Vs. Republic of Senegal (2010) CCJ LR 65. In the light of the above analysis and decided cases, it is the law that the subject matter of this action falls within the jurisdiction of this Court since the substance thereof is predicated on the purported violations of the rights of the Plaintiffs as enshrined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and other International human rights instruments to which the 1st and the 2nd Defendants are parties. The Court therefore declares that it has jurisdiction to entertain this matter. In order to strengthen the jurisprudence of the Court in the area of practice and procedure, it is pertinent to determine whether the 2nd, 3rd,4th and 5th Defendants are necessary parties to this suit. In other words will their presence contribute to the dispensation of the justice of this case?. It appears a pronouncement on this matter will go a long way to sanitize the types of processes that are brought before this Court and the persons who are brought as parties. For the avoidance of doubt, Article 9(4) clearly provides that the 18