before its National Assembly would violate the Applicants’ human rights of freedom of speech and press if passed into law. 38. To this end, since the Applicants have raised some complaints about the activities of the Respondent’s National Assembly in violation of their human rights, this Court has jurisdiction to examine the impugned process of the Assembly with the view to ascertaining whether or not any violation of human rights has occurred and the Court so holds. VIII. ADMISSIBILITY 39. This matter falls under Article 10(d) of the Supplementary Protocol on the Court as amended which provides that “Access to the court is open to individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights, the submission of application for which shall; i) Not be anonymous; nor ii) Be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another international court for adjudication”. 40. In a Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent in the early stage of the proceedings against the admissibility of this case, the Court dismissed the objection as premature and admitted the case in order to examine the substance of the Application. The Court’s decision was influenced by the fact that the violation alleged by the Applicants is an anticipatory one which needs to be examined together with the merits of the case. IX. MERITS 12