“Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: i. ii. Not be anonymous; nor Be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication.” The Court has held severally that a mere allegation of a violation of human rights in the territory of a Member State is sufficient, prima facie, to justify its jurisdiction. In the case of MOUSSA LEO KEITA V. THE REPUBLIC OF MALI (2007) ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/07, the Court held that it has a competence to adjudicate matters involving the violation of human rights within its Member State. Therefore the threshold is simply that the application should contain an allegation of a violation for it to be deemed admissible: See SERAP V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 4 ORS (2014) ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/14. The Applicants have contended that the Respondent’s act of arrest, detention and prosecution whilst exercising their fundamental human rights, especially their right to peaceful assembly, fair trial and the right to life is in violation of their right. Further, that the alleged torture, inhuman and degrading treatment meted out on them whilst in custody of the Respondent is an affront to their dignity. Furthermore, the Applicants also challenge the alleged death of one of them (Ebrima Solo Sadeng) in custody of the Respondents as a violation of his right to life. Subject to the above averments, the Applicants relied on the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 & 13 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, Articles 3, 4(1) And 25 (a) of The Protocol to The African Charter On Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa and Article 1 (j) of the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance. In relying on the said provisions, the Applicants are in tandem with the ratio in the case of KAREEM MEISSA WADE V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL (2019) ECW/CCJ/JUD/13/19, at pg. 259 Para. 95 (3), where the Court held that: “simply invoking human rights violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case.” See 12