be tempted, in the instant case, to question whether or not the matter before the Court is indeed well grounded, because as at the time the Court was seized with the case, no violation had as yet been committed, nor had any case of actual rejection of candidature been brought before the Court, and no individual candidature had been set aside in accordance with the new provisions; that, in a word, there is no real prejudice caused. It would amount to consigning its own time-held case law to oblivion if the Court should rule that it may legitimately entertain violations which have not yet occurred, but are imminent.(…) At any rate, this position of the Court, regarding the nature of harms it entertains, was clearly stated in its judgment on Hissène Habré v. Republic of Senegal, delivered on 18 November 2010. The Court recalls therein its case law in Case Concerning Hadidjatou Mani Koraou v. Republic of Niger, where it ruled that it has no jurisdiction to examine cases of violation in abstracto, but concrete cases of human rights violation. Therefore, in principle, a human rights violation is found à posteriori, by way of the evidence that the violation in question has already occurred (§48). The Court has further ruled however that it may occur that in specific circumstances, the risk of a future violation confers on an applicant the status of a victim (§49). Thus, there may be reasonable and convincing indications of the probability of the occurrence of certain actions (§53). Given such specific circumstances, which the Court considers akin to the conditions surrounding the instant case, the Court can perfectly adjudicate on the case.” 49. Lastly, in the case of L’UNION SOCIALE LIBÉRALE (USL) v. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL (2021) Judgment no. ECW/CCJ/JUD/10/21 of 28 April 2021, 16