opportunity was given to the Plaintiffs to defend themselves at the trial and that the 1st Defendant not having participated in the trial makes no admission as to the corrections or otherwise of the judgment. 2. That the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this case because the suit is grossly misconceived as its jurisdiction is invoked improperly as the Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over the domestic Court of Member States. 3. That the Plaintiffs did not exhaust local remedies before coming to the Court and that the 2nd Defendant cannot be held responsible for the act of its officials, done pursuant to a request of the 1st Defendant a sovereign State. The 1st and the 3rd Defendants subsequently brought an application to enter a new plea pursuant to Articles 37 (2) & (3) of the Rules of this Court. They contended that the Supreme Court of Liberia had entered final judgment in the appeal by the Plaintiffs, pending before it whereby it ordered the immediate release of the Plaintiffs from detention and the restoration of their civil rights to liberties and all other constitutional and statutory rights. Accordingly, the effect of the Supreme Court ruling is that it raises the issue of res judicata with regard to the current claim judging from the order sought by the Plaintiffs. Consequently, there is no basis for the claim by the Plaintiffs that their civil rights to liberty and life is being violated by the defendants. 8