and having consented to the training is a bar to an action against the Defendant. For the avoidance of doubt, the jurisdiction of this Court is clearly spelt out by Article 9 of Supplementary Protocol (A/ SP.1/01/ 05) as follows: The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human right that occur in any Member State. In the originating Application, the Applicant has clearly stated that Articles 1, 3, 4,5,18 and 43 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, has been violated by the Defendant in relation to him as a result of the death of his son, caused by the acts or omission of the Defendant’s agent. The Defendant on the other hand has argued that the case is founded on the tort of negligence since it was alleged that it was the negligence of the Defendant that resulted in the death of the deceased. This Court has consistently guarded its human rights mandate. In Hissen Habre Vs. Republic of Senegal (2010) CCJ LR 20, it held that in order to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, it has to examine; a. If the issues submitted before it deals with a right which has been enshrined for the benefit of the human person; 16