“Once human rights violation which involves international or community obligations of a member state is alleged, it will exercise its jurisdiction over the case.” Again, in the most affirmative terms, this Court in KAREEM MEISSA WADE v. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL (2013) CCJELR 231 held that: “… simply invoking human rights violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case”. 51.The Applicant is alleging violation of, inter alia, Article 7 of the African Charter which guarantees him right to fair and impartial trial. In the case of MOUSSA LEO KEITA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MALI (2004 – 2009) CCJELR 63, this Court held that: “the rights enshrined in the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights have been so described so as to bring out clearly their content, import and extent of enjoyment, so that the act of their violation may be qualified as a “human rights violation”. 52.At this stage, jurisdiction ought to be considered as a separate subject from the Court’s overall determination of the veracity of the claims sought by the Applicant. This was amply stated in the case of REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE SOCIO ECONOMIC RIGHTS & ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (SERAP) & 10 ORS v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 4 ORS. (2014) JUDGMENT NO. ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/14 (UNREPORTED) @72, where this Court held that: “the mere allegation that there has been a violation of human rights in the territory of a member state is sufficient prima facie to justify the jurisdiction of this court on the dispute, surely without any prejudice to the substance 22