Article 10 (d) of the same Protocol grants access to individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights with certain conditions. In HISSEIN HABRE V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL (2010) CCJELR, the court held that it shall examine:  If the issues submitted before it deals with a right which has been enshrined for the benefit of the human person;  Whether it arises from international or community obligations of the state complained of, as human rights to be promoted, observed, protected, and enjoyed;  Whether it is the violation of that right which is being alleged. International human rights law aims at protecting citizens from abusive actions of states and their agents. This court is a Regional court with human rights mandate. Therefore where the allegation in an initiating application lodged invokes the human rights jurisdiction of the Court, this court will examine the facts as presented by the Applicant and if the Court is convinced from the facts that there exists an element of human right violation, the Court will, in the absence of anything to the contrary entertain the suit. The court has held that for its jurisdiction to arise the alleged violation must be founded on an international or community obligation of the state and it will not matter that the state was not involved in the actual commission of the physical act. Once there is an inaction or failure by the member state to fulfill any of its obligations to protect, promote, ensure and fulfil, the Court will assume jurisdiction. See Mamadou Tandja (2010 CCJELR) 109, Hissen Habre vs Senegal (2010 CCJELR) 65 and Bakare Sarre V Mali (2011) CCJELR, 57. It is necessary to point out that jurisdiction is glimpsed from the Plaintiffs case and not from the defense. We will therefore look into the defense at this stage. The Plaintiff’s allegation is that their rights to property, fair hearing and right dignity as provided under Articles 5 and 7 and 14 of the African Charter respectively were violated by the Defendants agents and that the Defendant have failed to carry out effective investigation into the matter. 8