56. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that individuals or NGOs need not demonstrate a personal interest in order to bring an application before the Court and that the only prerequisite is that the Respondent State, in addition to being a party to the Charter and Protocol, must have deposited the Declaration. This is in cognisance of the practical difficulties that victims of human rights violations may encounter in bringing their complaints before the Court, thus allowing any person to bring their complaints before the Court without having to demonstrate direct personal interest in the matter.12 57. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant alleges that the Amnesty Law and the acts of repressions committed during the postelection protests violate the rights protected by the Charter. 58. The Court observes that these allegations fall within the scope of objective litigation insofar as they are of interest to all citizens, given that they directly or indirectly affect their individual or collective rights, the security and wellbeing of their society and of their country. As the Applicant himself is a citizen of the Respondent State, and as the challenges he brings before the Court have a potential impact on these rights protected by the Charter, it is clear that he has a direct interest in the matter.13 59. Consequently, the Court dismisses this objection. B. Admissibility requirements provided for by the Charter and the Rules 60. Article 6(2) of the Protocol provides that “the Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter.” 12 XYZ v. Republic of Benin, supra, § 55. 13 XYZ v. Republic of Benin, supra, § 57; XYZ v. Republic of Benin, (merits and reparations) (Judgment of 27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 83, § 49. 15