this Court in EBRIMAH MANNEH VS. THE REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA (2004-2009) CCLR 181 AT 195. Where the Court relied on the European Court decision in SELMONNI VS. STATE OF FRANCE (2005) CHR 237 and MIROSLAV VS. REPUBLIC OF CROATIA (2005) CHR 429. In conclusion, they urged the Court to grant all reliefs sought for in this application. 3. THE DEFENDNT’S CASE The Defendant, in response to the claim against her, filed a statement of defence (Document No.3) apparently out of the time stipulated by the Rules of this Court. Realizing the gaffe, the Defendant now filled a motion on notice seeking for enlargement of time within which to file her defence. The prayer was granted and issues were thus properly joined by the parties. In their statement of Defence, the Defendant denied violating the rights of the Applicants in any manner whatsoever. The main planks of their denial of liability are as follows: a. That terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstances and must be combated in all forms. b. That pursuant to this Member States of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) now African Union (AU) on the 13th of July, 1999 promulgated the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism. That the Convention was ratified by the Defendant on April 28, 2002. c. That Article 4(2) of the Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism provides that; “State parties shall adopt any legitimate measures aimed at preventing and combating terrorists’ acts in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and their respective national legislation”. d. That the Convention imposed on Members States the duty of preventing their territories from being used as a base for planning, organization or execution of terrorist acts. e. That pursuant to the above provision, the terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 was enacted by the National Assembly of Nigeria, which made provisions for the prevention, prohibition and combating of acts of 27