57. However, the Court is quick to caution that this is not an absolute position, as it has equally accepted certain situations where it will examine the decisions of national Courts if human rights violation were alleged in the course of the proceedings before the national courts. See HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE PAUL UUTER DERRY & 2 ORS V. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA JUDGMENT NO ECW/CCJ/JUD/17/19 PAGE 28. See also PTE ALIMU AKEEM V. REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/14 PAGE 10. 58.In the instant case, the claim of the Applicants being the allegation of human rights violation in the course of the proceedings of their case before the national courts, this Court is competent to examine the said decision to determine its merit. Therefore, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the instant Application. Consequently, the Respondent’s preliminary objection on this issue is hereby dismissed. ISSUE 2: Objection that the Application is statute barred 59.The Respondent averred that assuming but not conceding that the subject matter of this suit falls within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, they strongly contend that the purported cause of action of the Applicants arose sixteen (16) years ago, which makes this Application statute barred in accordance with Article 9(3) of the Supplementary Protocol [A/SP.1/01/05] amending the Protocol [A/P1/7/91] relating to the Community Court of Justice. 60. They refer the Court to paragraph 2 of the Applicants’ narration of facts wherein it is stated that the Applicants have been on death row for sixteen 19