25.The Respondent having failed, refused/neglected to raise a preliminary objection in this regard, the Court will suo moto rule on the capacity of the 2nd to 4th Respondents. Consequently, the 2nd to 4th Respondent, not being proper persons and devoid of capacity to be sued are hereby struck out of the list of the Respondents to this suit. The Court will now proceed to analyse seriatim the issues for determination as already distilled. 26.WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE BY THE COURT. The Applicant approached this Court for alleged violation of his human rights occasioned by the refusal of the Respondent to pay his retirement entitlements and other benefits attached to his office as a former Vice Chairman of the Transitional Council of Liberia contrary to Articles 1,2,3,4 & 19 of the ACHPR, Articles 6,7,22 and 25(1) of the UDHR and Articles 2(1), 9, & 11 of the ICESCR. The Respondent on the other hand contends that the Applicant has not shown any characteristic violations of his human rights to trigger the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore urges the Court to declare the application inadmissible. 27.The Court in coming to a decision on this issue, affirms its human rights mandate as provided in Article 9(4) of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol on the Court (A/SP.1/01/05) as follows in “The court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any member state.” This Court has held in many of its flourishing jurisprudence that mere allegation of violation of human rights is sufficient to trigger the jurisdiction of this Court and the Court will assume jurisdiction without necessarily examining the veracity of the allegation. In Kareem Meissa Wade v. Republic of Senegal, ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/13, at pg. 259 Para. 95 (3), this court held that: “Nevertheless, that simply invoking human rights violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case.” Similarly, In BAKARE SARRE V MALI (2011) CCJELR pg. 57, the court stressed that: 10