FACTS OF THE DEFENCE 12. The Defendant, Republic of Ghana, in its Defence, denies being responsible for the actions of the two former police constables and denies all the averments made in the Plaintiffs' application and states that it is not responsible for the alleged violation of the property rights of the Plaintiffs, as the police officers were on a frolic of their own and were not acting as official agents of the Republic of Ghana. 13. The Defendant contends that the superior officers of the two constables within Ghana Police Services were not aware of the actions of the two constables and that in the course of their trial before the Circuit Court, Accra, the two former police men admitted that they acted without official sanction. The evidence given by the two police men and other witnesses in Court, show that the two of them were not on official duty on the day that they committed the crime against the Plaintiffs. LEGAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS 14. Learned Counsel to the Plaintiffs submits that pursuant to the provisions of Articles 9 and 10 of the Supplementary Protocol of 19th January 2005, on the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS, which provides "The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State and can be accessed by individuals or corporate bodies who are victims of human rights violations. " 15. Learned Counsel to the Plaintiffs further submitted that the infringement on their rights to property, by the actions of the officials of the defendant clearly constituted a flagrant violation of human rights as provided in Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' rights and that Mr. Tidiane Konte and Mr. Issa Diawara, the plaintiffs have good grounds to lodge their claim before this Court in order to seek redress. 5