with his status. Applicant voluntarily resigned his position to contest for the presidency in 1997. Hence, he is ineligible to reap retirement benefits from the Government of Liberia because he is not a retiree. Applicant further argue that to award any amount of money to the Applicant would be tantamount to unjust enrichment and the law abhors unjust enrichment. 18.The Respondents are emphatic they have not injured Applicant in any form and manner as far as the records are concerned and neither have they violated his rights at any time and as such they are not indebted to the Applicant for the amount of US$726,982.00 (Seven Hundred Twenty-six Thousand, Nine Hundred & Eighty-Two United States Dollars). The Respondent concluded that refusal to allow Applicant to unjustly enrich himself at the detriment of the citizens of the Republic of Liberia does not amount to the violation of the Applicants human rights within the context of the UDHR, ACHPR, ICESCR and ICCPR as claimed by the Applicant. SUMMARY OF THE PLEAS IN LAW OF RESPONDENT: 19.The Respondents contend that the Applicant lacks capacity to bring this suit before this Honorable Court because Applicant does not meet the criteria to qualify as a retiree. Therefore, since he is not a retiree, he lacks the standing/capacity to institute this suit as it is inconsistent with Section 11.2 (e) of Title 1 of the Civil Procedure Laws of Liberia. 20.Furthermore the Respondents contend that the reliefs sought by the Applicant is not admissible because Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05 of the Community Court of Justice provides that: “The Court have jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any member state.” The Respondent argued that in the instant case, Applicant has not shown nor advance any evidence of any characteristic violation of his human rights nor attached to its application the specific instances how his rights were violated to trigger the jurisdiction of the court as held by this Court in the case of Moussa Leo Keita V. The Republic of Mali ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/07: “It has a competence to adjudicate matters involving the violation of human rights within its Member State. This Court also held that the Applicant must show proof indicative of a characteristic violation of a fundamental human rights: “and in the absence of any such violation application must be declared inadmissible.” 7