still necessary to determine the competence of the Application as it concerns authorization or mandate to act. 77.The cardinal rule on access to the Court is that only direct victims of human rights violations can access the Court for relief for the violation of their human rights See Article 10(d) (i) and (ii) of the Supplementary Protocol 2005: “Access to the Court is open to…d) individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights...” In essence, direct victims alleging violation of their rights with interest that is direct, personal and certain are the only parties inherently qualified to seek remedy for such violation which ordinarily cannot be transferable to another individual or organisations. ODAFE OSERADA V. ECOWAS COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, ECOWAS PARLIAMENT & ECOWAS COMMISSION, ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/08 @ 27. 78.It follows from the above that since the direct victim is the one personally affected, the requirement for mandate to act is obviously of no essence in an application under this circumstance. 79. While the direct victim is the party that is inherently qualified to bring action for the violation of his/her human rights, the door is however not shut against victims who are not able for recognised reasons to act for themselves as a representative action is admissible. 80.This waiver is premised on the fact that the Court recognises that Human rights are human centered, and the admissibility of an application is linked among other criteria to the status of the victim. This condition necessarily entails the applicant, acting on personal grounds as a result of a legally 24