the rights of the Defendant. Court It adds that if in any extraordinary holds that it has jurisdiction to examine have to conclude that the report adduced the case, manner, the it will nevertheless by the Plaintiff does not meet the universally accepted criteria for it to be admitted in evidence. 21. Besides, the Federal Republic of Nigeria affirms that the Plaintiff does not have locus standi to bring the instant action and maintains, morever, that by virtue of the provisions of the new Article 9(3) of the Protocol on the Court as amended by the 19 January 2005 Protocol, certain facts brought by the Plaintiff have come under the three-year statute bar, of therefore and therefore its action is foreclosed. 22. The Federal Republic Nigeria concludes that the Plaintiff's Application is not founded and must be dismissed. IN LAW 23. The Court considers that certain issues raised by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, notably — (1) that the Court lacks jurisdiction to examine the alleged violations of the said Covenants; (2) lack of locus standi on the part of the Plaintiff; (3) the Plaintiff’s failure to produce the Amnesty International report at the time of lodgment of the substantive application; and (4) that certain facts pleaded by the Plaintiff have come under a three-year statute bar. These questions present a preliminary aspect which touches on the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application. The Court therefore intends to analyse them before any analysis is made on the merits of the case. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS (i) Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to examine the alleged violations of the said Covenants 24. The Federal Republic of Nigeria argues notably, that the Constitution of Nigeria only recognises competence to the jurisdiction examine of the domestic violation of the rights courts of Nigeria, contained in the as far as ICCPR is 8|Page