SERAP v. Nigeria, Ruling, Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09 and RUL. No: ECW/CCJ/APP/07/10 (ECOWAS, Dec. 10, 2010) 1/25/21, 1:48 PM Human Rights, as laid down in Peter David v. Ambassador Ralph Uwechue delivered on the 11th day of June 2010. 72. In that decision the Court held that"As an International Court with jurisdiction over Human Rights violation, the Court cannot disregard the basic principles and the practice that guided the adjudication of the disputes on Rights at International level. Viewed from this angle, the Court recalls that the International bodies rely essentially on treaties to which States are parties as the principal subject of International Law. As a matter of fact, the international regime of Human Rights imposes obligations on States. All mechanisms established thereof are directed to the engagement of State Responsibility for its commitment or failure towards those international instruments. From what has been said, the conclusion to be drawn is that for the dispute between individuals on alleged violation of Human Rights as enshrined in the African charters on Human and Peoples' Rights, the natural and proper venue before which the case may be pleaded is the domestic court of the State party where the violation occurred is only when at the national level, there is no appropriate and effective forum for seeking redress against individuals, that the victim of such offences may bring an action before an international court, not against the individuals, rather against the signatory State for failure to ensure the protection and respect for the Human Rights allegedly violated. Within ECOWAS Community, apart from Member States, other entities that can be brought to this court for alleged violation of Human Rights are the institutions of the community because, since the cannot, as a rule, be sued before domestic jurisdiction, the only avenue left to the victims for seeking redress for grievance against those institutions is the Community Court of Justice. 73. The same reasoning expended above to justify the lack of jurisdiction of the Court on individuals sued for human rights violation applies entirely in the cases, as the instant, where the alleged perpetrators of the violation are other non state actors like corporations. Neither individuals nor corporations are parties to the treaties that the international Tribunal with jurisdiction over human rights are empowered to enforce. 74. Having arrived at the conclusion that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain disputes for alleged violation of Human Rights perpetrated by the defendants, the Court does not need to go further in the analysis of the remaining issues raised in the preliminary objection. DECISION 75. Whereas the existence of the Plaitiff has been established; 76. Whereas the Plaintiff has the requisite locus standi to initiate the present proceedings; 77. Whereas the Court has no jurisdiction over the Defendants who are corporations for alleged violation of Human Rights, 78. He Court sitting and adjudicating in public, in the Community Court of justice, in Abuja hereby holds that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the case brought by the Plaintiff against the corporate defendants. 79. Pursuant to article 66(12) of the rules of Procedures of the Court which states that where the action does not proceed to judgment the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court and taking into http://www.worldcourts.com/ecowasccj/eng/decisions/2010.12.10_SERAP_v_Nigeria.htm Page 12 of 13