their men were injured while eight Civilians were shot dead and eleven others sustained various degrees of gun-shot wounds. 6. The Applicants also made references to International Humanitarian law principles governing armed conflict to support their case. 7. The Applicants further submitted that by virtue of Article 9(1) (d) and 10(c) and (d) of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05) relating to the Community Court of Justice of ECOWAS, the Court has power to hear applications bordering on enforcement of human rights contained in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as well as other international treaties, Declarations and Conventions; citing the decision in JERRY UGOKWE VS. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND ANOR (2004-2009) CCLR 37 (A) 49 TO 52. 8. That by virtue of the Defendant being a signatory to the UN General Assembly Resolution 40/34 of November,1985 on the Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice for victims of crime and victims of abuse of power, the Defendant accepts that victims of fundamental human rights abuse are persons who: “Individually or collectively have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative in Member States”. Accordingly, victims include, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victims and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or preventing victimization. The Applicants further submitted that the complaints made in the Application are clearly covered by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and S.33 of the Constitution of the Defendant which guaranteed the right to life except in circumstances permitted by law. They drew the Court’s attention to the Senate Report, which states that in this particular case, the operations of the agents of the Defendant’s “leaves much to be desired” and that the “Apo incident” is tragic and regrettable”. 9. That the Defendant has a duty in International Law to make a reparation. They urged the Court to sustain their contention and hold the Defendant liable in the course of enforcing the law. They referred to the decision of 26