32.It can be deduced from the provisions of Article 9(4) of Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 amending Protocol A/P.1/7/91 on the Community Court of Justice, that the Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State. 33.In that light, the Applicant invokes violation of human rights under Article 9 of the 19 January 2005 Protocol, alleging that he is a victim of that violation. 34.In several cases, including Mamadou Tandja v. Niger and El Hadj Aboubacar Tijani v. BCEAO, the Honourable Court declares that for the Court to uphold its human rights mandate, citing human rights violation suffices. 35.It is apparent from the Initiating Application that Hama Amadou is asking the Court to declare that the Republic of Niger violated the provisions of: Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) regarding right to security; Article 26 of ICCPR and Article 3 of ACHPR regarding equality before the law; Article 15(1) of ICCPR and Article 7(2) of ACHPR regarding the law of nulla poena sine lege; Article 14 of ICCPR and Article 7 of ACHPR regarding the right to fair hearing; Article 13 of ACHPR regarding the right to participate freely in the government of his country; Articles 17 and 23(1) of ICCPR and Article 18 of ACHPR regarding the right to family life. 36.He further asks the Court to: find that the charges laid against him were made without legal basis and in violation of the principles of fair trial, and order the Republic of Niger to refrain from implementing the decision made, and derive all the legal consequences thereof, capable of depriving him of his rights, either as a litigant or as a citizen, as stipulated in texts subscribed to by the Republic of Niger on human rights; to restore him back to his original situation in which he would have found himself, had the said violations not occurred. Translator : E. Nkansah 10