8 the Court how the name of the vessel was changed from "Elizabeth Rose" to "Ocean King". Further, counsel noted that plaintiff failed to satisfactorily explain the discrepancy between the date of pw-chase and that on which the name was changed, alleging that Nigerian Law allows it without pinpointing my specific legislation within Nigeria that permits that. 26. Again, the deed of sale presented by the plaintiff is made in the name of one Mohammed Jibril but this person was not invited by plaintiff to testify on its behalf. The deed of sale also lacked important characteristics such as name and home port, major dimension, place and date of construction, numbers of crew and passenger capacity, nature, type and brand of propulsive devices among others. 27. Counsel also submitted that after evaluating all the evidence before the Court, the plaintiffs application ought to fail as it has not established the violation of any human right which is based on any specific human rights text. He continued that plaintiff vaguely made reference to the African Charter, Revised Treaty of ECOWAS and the Protocols relating thereto without stating the relevant provisions that are breached in these legislations. Also, the Tribunal Regional Hors Classe de Dakar that made the decision divesting plaintiff of the ownership of the vessel in dispute was properly seised of the case and made its decision after hearing the parties involved. The Ce1iificate on Non Appeal (Annexure A) attached to defendant's defence and issued by the Tribunal Regional Hors Classe clearly indicated that the plaintiff was a party to the proceedings. The decision is therefore valid. 28. With respect to the arguments in supp01t of the defendant's case, learned counsel stated that the plaintiffs a p plication ought to fail on technical grounds based on this Court's own jurisprudence. Learned com1sel to the defendant stated that it is only individuals who can directly come to the Court on matters of human rights. Counsel continued that this Court, after making reference to Articles 9 (4) and 10 (d) of the Protocol as amended, affirmed in the cases of Chief Ebrimah Manneh v. Republic of The Gambia (Suit No. EC W/CCJ/APP/04/07, judgment delivered on 5th June 2008) and Hadijatou Mani Koraou v. Republic of Niger (Suit No. ECW/APP/08/07, judgment delivered on 2ih October 2008) that it is only individuals who can approach this Court in matters of human rights. 8