court equally carefully considers how the parties present such allegations. The court therefore looks to find out whether the human rights violation as observed constitutes the main subject matter of the application and whether the pleas-in-law and evidence produced essentially go to establish such violation. In view of the foregoing, it is our view that the initiating application is admissible as the subject matter is within the courts competence and a prima facie case has been established against the Defendant. The Defendant submits that there is no cause of action against the 2nd Respondent and that the 2nd Respondent is not a proper party to this suit. Article 10 of the supplementary protocol provides for who can sue and be sued before this court This Court has held in a plethora of cases that only member states and institutions of the community can be brought before it. The second Respondent is neither a member state of ECOWAS nor an institution of the community. In SERAP Vs The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and 8ors (2010 CCJELR) this court held that only member states and institutions of the community can be sued before it for human rights violations. In view of the above, the 2nd Respondent, not being a member state is not a proper party before this court and should be struck out from this suit. Having dealt with the preliminary objection we now turn to the issues raised in the substantive application and the defense thereto. SUBTANTIVE APPLICATION From the averments of both parties to this suit, the following issues call for consideration by this court 1. WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED, THERE HAS BEEN VIOLATION OF THE APPLICANTS RIGHTS AS ALLEGED. 2. IF THE ANSWER TO THE ABOVE IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE CAN RESPONDENT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE VIOLATION? 10