AKEEM v. REPUBLIC FEDERAL OF NIGERIA, Ruling Nº ECW/CCJ/RUL/05/11, CCJRL (2011), pag. 121 ff.) 113. This position of the Court has been permanently reaffirmed in a plethora of judgments, making it indisputable that, in a case, the mere allegation of violation of human rights is sufficient to trigger the jurisdiction of this Court and it will assume jurisdiction without necessarily examining the veracity of the claim. (See the case DR. GEORGE S. BOLEY v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA & 4 ORS, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/19 §27). 114. Furthermore, in relation to the aforementioned Article 9 (4), this Court, in the case SAWADOGO PAUL & 3 ORS v. REPUBLIC OF BURKINA FASO, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/20 §2 ruled that “From the above provision, it is pertinent that two conditions must be met before the Court can exercise jurisdiction over na application brought before it for consideration- a) there must be an allegation of human rights violation and; b) such violation must have occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Member State against which the application was brought.” 115. In the instant case, the Applicant grounds his application on alleged violation of his human rights, namely, those under Article 7(1) of the African Charter, Article 10 of the UDHR, Article 14(1), 1st and 2nd sentences and Article 14(3)(b) of the ICCPR on account of the Special Committee of the Togolese National Assembly established on March 10, 2020; under Article 9(2) of the African Charter and Article 19 of the UDHR on account of the dean of investigating judges of Lomé First Class Court of First Instance; under Article 9(2) of the UDHR and Article 6, in fine, of the African Charter on account of agents of the Criminal Intelligence and Investigations Service (SCRIC) of the national gendarmerie. 116. Contrary to the Respondent's allegation, the Applicant has not merely made a reference to international instruments protecting human rights, but 26