rights to personal liberty. In its judgment, the Court reiterated its competence in human rights cases and emphatically held that in exercising its jurisdiction, it has the powers to examine the laws of Member States under some conditions. In citing the case of HADIJATOU MANI KORAOU v. REPUBLIC OF NIGER (2004-2009) CCJELR, PG 232 PARA. 60, in which the court held that: “it does not have the mandate to examine the laws of member states of the community in abstracto but rather, to ensure the protection of rights of individuals whenever such individuals are victims of the violation of those rights which are recognized as theirs, and the court does so by examining concrete cases brought before it”, the Court adjudged that “in view of its jurisprudence, this Court has the competence to examine the laws upon which the allegations are based to ascertain whether the laws and punitive measures are regular or in violation of the Applicants’ rights”. 62.In performing this task, the object is not to interpret and apply the domestic laws of member states in abstracto, even though they may be subject to scrutiny where such laws and procedures are impugned with the sole aim of establishing whether any human rights violations have occurred. 63.Based on the above considerations, the Applicant having cited the noncompliance with Section 43 of the 1986 Constitution of the Respondent that occasioned the violation of his guaranteed rights, particularly right to fair hearing and due process, the Court therefore finds that it has the mandate to ensure the protection of the human rights of citizens in Member States by examining any act, whether in theory or in the application of domestic law, that occasions a violation of human rights. Therefore, the Respondent’s objection under this head also fails. 26