In view of the foregoing, it is clear that as in the present case, the words of the Protocols establishing the Court are unambiguous and the Court is duty bound to apply them. The Defendant’s contention that a similar action is pending before the Nigerian Court and as such this Court cannot entertain this issue is unfounded. In VALENTINE AYIKA Vs. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA (2011) CCJ LR P.233, the Defendant’s objection to the Court’s jurisdiction was based on the fact that there is a pending case before the Liberian Supreme Court, this Court held that the Supreme Court of Liberia and for that matter any Domestic Court in a Member State does not qualify as an international Court within the meaning of Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol of this Court. See also AZIEKPELEKOKOU Vs. REPUBLIC OF TOGO Suit: ECW/CCJ/APP/08/13. The effect and significance of the cases cited above is such that a party who alleges a violation of his human rights not only has access to this Court even if the same suit is pending in National Courts but also can maintain such action even without exhausting local remedies. See ETIM MOSES Vs. GAMBIA (20042009) CCLR 95 A careful perusal of the Application shows that the case pending before the Domestic Court of the Defendant as presented by the Defendant shows that they are based on allegation of commission of crime which is outside the jurisdiction 30