such treaties but also have ratified them, gives them the onus to discharge any obligation under it. The Court will now examine these issues for the determination seriatim. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the case The test criteria for the Court to admit any application that is before it or to assume jurisdiction to hear these applications are found in Article 9 (4) of the Protocol as Amended which provides that the Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of human rights violation that occur in any Member State. Before proceeding on the issue of jurisdiction the criteria test for admissibility of application by this Court in accordance with Article 9 (4) and Article 10 (d) of the Amended Protocol must be considered. Important among the criteria are those provided for in Article 10 (d) which states as follows: i. ii. not be anonymous; nor be made whilst the same mater has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication; Article 9(4) of the Amended Protocol only states that there must be a violation right for which the application is brought before the Court for determination. Article 9 (4) sets the core mandate of the Court and Article 10 (d) (i) and (ii) of the Amended Protocol merely set out the conditions precedent to be met for the Court to admit an application. Where these criteria have been met the Court will declare such an application admissible. The claim of the Applicants’ is for violation of their right to work and the right to fair hearing and are seeking several reliefs including declarations, directives, orders, compensation and costs of the action. The Respondent has denied all the claims and states clearly that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims as they submit that it is a matter devoid of human rights violation and entirely under the purview of the Armed forces Act of Nigeria and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. The Court in several of its judgements has consistently held that its jurisdiction shall be upheld whenever an application before it invokes human rights violations arising from the provisions of Article 9 (4) of the Protocol of the Court as amended by the 2005 Supplementary Protocol which provides that: “The Court has jurisdiction to 7