7Another argumentraisedbytheDefendantisthatthePlaintiffcannotclaimany form of"righttolife" before theECOWASCourt,particularlyasaresult ofthe factthat thevictims are"deceased".InitsNotice ofPreliminaryObjection,the FederalRepublicofNigeriasubmittedthat: "Havingacknowledgedthefactthat thedeceasedpersons weremurdered,their (thedeceased's)rightstolifewere thusextinguishedandareunenforceablebythePlaintifforanyother persons... And the HonourableCourt will have no jurisdictionto entertainthe suit." Further, in its written pleadings, the Federal Republic of Nigeria equally contended that:"SincethePlaintiffmaintainthatthedeceasedwerekilled,the aforesaiddeceased'srighttolifeisunenforceable.TheHonourableCourtcannot enforceanunenforceableright."TheDefendant'sreasoningthustendsto denythe heirs andclose·relatives of the "deceased" every right to bring any claim whatsoeverbefore the Court, notably insofarasitconcerns "righttolife."Suchviewontheissueisinconsistentwith thepractice ofseveralinternational courts,before whichtherightofpersonsclosetopeopleconsidered"deceased" or"disappeared",iswellestablished. Anumberofinternationalinstitutionsmay becitedinthat regard:-TheUNCommitteeonHumanRights(CommunicationNo.1912/2009,Views adopted bythe Committeeatits106th Session,15October-2November2012};-The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Velasquez Rodriguez v.Honduras,29July1988};EuropeanCourtofHumanRights(JudgmentsonKurtv.Turkey,20May1998, andCakiciv.Turkey,8July1999}.BeforealltheseCourts,itisupheldthatcloserelatives of"deceased"victimsare entitledto bringingsuchcasesbefore court. TheECOWASCourt ofJusticeis thereforequite surprised bythe Defendant'sargumentthat sucharight may onlybeclaimed bysuchholders asarealive,andnot dead.When itbecomes impossible for him whose right isviolatedto insist on that right or to seek redress,either becauseheisdeceased orpreventedinone way orthe other 8from doingso,itisperfectlynormal that theright tobring hiscasebefore the lawcourts should fallonother personsclosetohim. Itwould amount tothe scopeofhumanrightsbeingshrunkconsiderably,with thebeneficial effectsof thelegalprovisions endorsinghumanrightshavingbeenreduced,ifthejudicial recognitionof human rights is conditionedupon the physical presence of claimantsbeforetherelevantlitigatingbodies.Similarly,itwould amounttoadangerousacceptanceoftheseriousoffenceof murder, ifoneshould endorse theideathat,somehow,a"deceased" person losesallhisrights,andcannot bring hiscasebefore court, not eventhrough persons closeto him. TheCourt isof the view that to endorse that line of reasoningwould besynonymouswith opening upthe highway toimpunity,in anera where committing"murder",and its corollaryof torture,.constitute violations oftheimperativenormsofinternationallawjuscogens).Itisworthy torecall,atthisjuncture,anumberofinitiativesorlegalinstruments adopted bythe United Nations,notably thosedirectly related tothe issueof "disappearance"ofpersons:UnitedNationsDeclaration onProtection ofAllPersonsfromEnforced Disappearance,adopted bythe GeneralAssembly (includingthe Stateof Nigeria) on 18 December 1992, whose Article 17 (1) states: "Acts constituting enforced disappearance shallbe considered a continuingoffence as long as the perpetrators continue to concealthe fate andwhereabouts ofpersonswhohavedisappearedandtheseremain unclarified.";Reportofthe WorkingGrouponEnforcedorInvoluntaryDisappearances, undertheHumanRightsCommissionoftheUnited Nations;ReportoftheUnited NationsWorkingGrouponArbitraryDetention,under thesameUnited NationsHumanRightsCommission.