004095 45. As to whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to consider violations based on noncompliance with the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the Court notes that this Declaration is not an international instrument, but is rather a text of French internal law which does not impose any obligation on the Respondent State . The Court cannot therefore extend its jurisdiction to cover that Declaration. 46 .Accordingly, the Court dismisses the objection to its material jurisdiction raised by the Respondent State. ii. Objection to personal jurisdiction 47. The Respondent State takes issue with the Applicant for bringing his case before the Court in order to obtain reparation for damages suffered by companies that have a legal personality distinct from his. Thus, the Court cannot find the Application admissible , since, in the instant case, it has been seized in respect of violations against a private legal entity that does not fulfil the requirements set forth in Article 5(3) of the Protocol. 48.lt also submits that the alleged damage resulting from the suspension of SOCOTRAC's customs agent license, the suspension of the container terminal of the same company and the closure of "SOLEIL FM" radio station and "SIKKA TV" television outlet was not personally suffered by the Applicant. 49.The Respondent State consequently contends that, since the Applicant personally sought reparation for damages suffered by companies, the Application must be found inadmissible for lack of locus standi. * 50. In his Response, the Applicant asserts that he is clearly entitled to bring the Application against the State of Benin in his capacity as the General Manager of COMON SA, manager and majority shareholder of SOCOTRAC, Chief Executive Officer of SIKKA INTERNATIONAL, promoter of SIKKA TV and General Manager I ~/d 'i 2£ W~