case depends not only on its texts but also on the substance of the initiating application. The Court accords every attention to claims made by applicants, the pleas-in-law invoked, and in an instance where human rights violation is alleged, the Court equally carefully considers how the parties present such allegations. The Court therefore looks to find out whether the human rights violation as observed constitutes the main subject-matter of the application and whether the pleas in-law and evidence produced essentially go to establish such violation.” 109. Further, in the case CHUDE MBA v. REPUBLIC OF GHANA, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/13, in CCJRL (2013) p. 349§52, the Court stated that: “As a general rule, jurisdiction is inferred from the Applicants claim and in deciding whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present action, reliance has to be placed on the facts as presented by the Applicant.” 110. The jurisdiction of this Court is provided under the Article 9 of the Protocol A/P1/7/91 on the Court, as amended by the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05. 111. Paragraph 4 of the Article 9 provides that: “The Court has jurisdiction to determine the cases of human rights violations that occur in any Member State.” 112. And it is case-law of this Court that its jurisdiction can not be called into question whenever the facts being claimed are related to Human Rights. (See the case HISSÈNE HABRÉ v. REPUBLIQUE DU SENEGAL, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/RUL/03/2010 of 14 May, CCJ, RL, 2010, p. 43, § 53-61; MAMADOU TANDJA v. REPUBLIC OF NIGER Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/10 CCJRL (2011), pag. 105 ff.; PRIVATE ALIMU 25