33. Having invoked the violation of the right to property, contrary to Articles 14 and 17 of the UDHR, the Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear the matter in accordance with Article 9 (4) of the Supplementary Protocol. Issue 2 - Whether the objection of the Respondent on locus standi of the Applicant is valid. 34. The Respondent in its objection argued that the Applicant does not have locus standi to access the Court because of its status as a corporate entity and not an individual as envisaged by Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol. 35. The Applicant on the other hand argued that this is a narrow and erroneous interpretation of the treaty provisions and cites the case of Les Établissements VAMO and Paschal Kuekia v Republic of Benin, Judgment No ECW/CCJ/JUD/12/15 of 20 April 2015, where the Court held that one of the Applicants who was a legal entity can be a victim clothed with the right to bring an action before the Court thus dismissing the objection of the Respondent States claiming that it was not a victim. Analysis of the Court 36. The Court in considering whether the Applicant has locus standi, that is, whether it is a proper party to access the Court, it must be guided by the Article 10(d) of the Supplementary Protocol, which provides thus, “Access to the Court is open to individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights……the submission of application for which shall (emphasis ours): i. not be anonymous; nor ii. be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another international Court for adjudication.” 37. From the abovementioned provisions of Article 10(d), it is clear that three conditions must be met before an application can be declared admissible before the Court. These are: a) the applicants must be victims of human rights violations, in other words, it must have the locus standi to bring the action, b) the applicants must not be anonymous, and c) the application must not have 12