27. He stated that the EC OWAS Court can adjudicate on any human I • I rights violation as provided by the Supplementary Protocol, Article 3 that: “The Court has competence to adjudicate on any dispute relating to the following: d) The failure by Member States to honour their obligations under the Treaty) Conventions and Protocols...” He referred to Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol that, “The Court has jurisdiction to determine case of violation of human rights that occur in anyMember State”. He further stated that the ECOWAS Court can adjudicate in respect of a continuing violation of human rights regarding the second Plaintiff's complaint and referred to the observation of the African Commission c that the denial of right to appeal amounts to a violation of right as envisaged by Article 7 of the African Charter on human and peoples' rights. In the case_ of Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights - -·- · -·•:..•:::-.·. :-;:-··--·· I -- -- - 1:; ; ! •. , and .- 1 ,_ Interrights v. Egypt (May 2011) case no. 334/06 that court stated, “The foreclosure of any avenue of appeal to competent national organs in a criminal case attracting punishment as severe as the death penalty clearly violates Article 7(1) (a) 11 28. The Plaintiffs further contended that since the second Plaintiff was sentenced to death ?Y the said military tribunal and had been deprived of his right to appeal from the date of his sentence till now, the - 2nd Plaintiff has continued to suffer violations of his fundamental rights. That the Plaintiff averred that since the second Plaintiff was sentenced to death on the 30th May, 1995 by a Nigerian Military Tribunal which 9