69. With regard to the objection based on the Applicants’ lack of interest or their lack of victim status, the Court recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that “[articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol] do not require individuals or NGOs to demonstrate a personal interest in an application in order to have access to the Court”.18 The Court observes that this position is based, among other things, on the fact that in principle, given their mandate and the very nature of their activities, NGOs are entitled to take legal action as long as they act in the public interest.19 70. In the present case, the Court notes that the Applicants are NGOs working in the field of human rights protection in Africa and, moreover, have observer status before the Commission. As such, there is no need to require them to prove personal interest in order to file an application with the Court. 71. The Court, therefore, dismisses this objection. ii. Objection based on failure to produce a power of attorney 72. The Respondent State contends that the victims have not given the Applicants any power of attorney or authorization to represent them before any international body. * 73. The Applicants did not submit on this objection. *** 74. The Court considers that the capacity of human rights non-governmental organisations applicants authorizes them to bring actions on behalf of victims in public interest cases, and that they are, therefore, not obliged to 18 XYZ v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application no. 010/2020, Judgment of 27 November 2020 (merits and reparations), §§ 47 and 48. 19 Bernard Anbataayela Mornah v. Republic of Benin and Others, ACtHPR, Application No. 028/2018, Judgment of 22 September 2022, § 120; XYZ v. Benin, 54-56; Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (14 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 34, § 1. 20