institute action against the Respondent ( a member state) for violation of Human Rights. 56. The above strict interpretation of Article 10 (d) of the English text continues to reflect the opinion of the Court in the majority of cases that have been decided, however in very few cases, the Court has ruled that Article 10 (d) of the French text accommodates both individual and legal persons. Therefore, in applying article 10(d) of the Protocol as amended, the Court has arrived at divergent decisions in respect of who can access the Court. This may be attributable to the slight difference between English and French texts of the Article. 57. The English texts provide that access to the Court is open to the following: Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: 1, not be anonymous; nor ii. be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for Adjudication; 58. On the other hand, the French text of the same Article provides as follows: Peuvent saisir la Cour: d) toute personne victim de violations des droits de I’ homme; l demande soumise a cet effet: i) ne sera pas anonyme; ii) ne sera pas portee devant la Cour de Jutice de la Communuate lorsqu’ elle a deja ete portee devant une autre Cour international competente. 59. The English text of Article 10(d) of the Protocol on the Court as amended clearly gives access to individuals for human rights violations cases. Whilst, the French texts gives access to toute personne victime. They do not exactly mean the same thing. Whereas individual means natural persons, toute personne victime, means every person that is a victim, which has been interpreted as natural or legal persons in the French version of the text. 60. In interpreting these provisions, the Court has come to divergent decisions. In 2009, the ECOWAS Court of Justice in its judgment in THE NATIONAL CO16