b. Whether it arises from international or Community obligations of the State complained of, as rights to be promoted, observed, protected and enjoyed. c. Whether it is the violation of that right which is being alleged. Similarly, in Bakare Sarre Vs. Mali (2011) CCJ LR P. 57, this Court equally emphasized that once the human rights allegedly violated involves international or community obligation of a member State, it will exercise jurisdiction over the case. See also Serap Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2014). Sikiru Alade Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010) (unreported) and the recent case of Sambo Dasuki Vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) (unreported). From the facts of this case the Applicant has alleged that the right to life of his son was violated. Article 4 of the African Charter provides as follows: “Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right”. It is obvious that the Applicant has identified a right which has been enshrined for the benefit of the human person. It is equally obvious that the Defendant as a signatory to the African Charter has undertaken to promote observe, protect the rights of persons within its jurisdiction. It is equally true that what is being complained of is the violation of these rights. It does not matter the animus behind the violation, what matters is the substance and not the form it took. 17