65. The above synopsis_ of the allegation by the plaintiffs I shows the involvement of the 3rd-5th defendants in the action complained about. The defendants, who did not deny their involvement in the events, justified the shooting of 5 canister of teargas by the security agents as a reaction to previous shot that had been fired by somebody placed at a building in the vicinity. In any case, they denied having wounded the plaintiffs or any other protester. 66. The plaintiffs, on their part, reiterate the allegation 1nade in their pleadings, attributing to the security agents, acting under defendants' order, the initiative to disperse a peaceful gathering through shootings at the protesters which resulted in injuries on some of them. Therefore, according to the ,.) - ..... ----·--·- ··· ... - ·-· - -_.> plaintiffs, both Rivers State and the Federal Republic of Nigeria are responsible for what they describe as violation of their human rights. '-' 67. Based on the contentions of the parties, the issue of proper parties to stand as defendant in this dispute and the Court's - jurisdiction over them arises because, as this Court has consistently maintained, only States that are contracting parties to the ECOWAS Revised Treaty and to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other similar - (Z--;·r• --