Analysis of the Court 68.The Court notes that the relevant provision on limitation of time to file a complaint of human rights violation is three years as enshrined in the English version of Article 9(3) of the Protocol (as amended by the Supplementary Protocol A/SP/01/05). However, the Court recalls that having observed a discrepancy between the wordings of this Article in the English and French versions, it resolved to adopt the French version which is the original text of the Protocol and in which actions against Member State being statute barred after three (3) years is missing. 69.Consequently, the current position of the Court is that its previous decisions which declared inadmissible actions brought against Member States for violation of human rights after three years were decided per incuriam. Accordingly, actions alleging violation of human rights against Member States is not subject to time limitation. See FEDERATION OF AFRICAN JOURNALISTS & 4 ORS V. THE REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/18(UNREPORTED) PG. 19-22. 70.The Court has thereafter upheld above decision finding no reason to depart from its earlier judgment that an applicant cannot be barred from instituting an action on violation of human right based on the effluxion of time. AIRCRAFTWOMAN BEAUTY IGBOBIE UZEZI V THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA RULING NO. ECW/CCJ/RUL/01/21, PAGE 23-25. 71.Therefore, in the instant case, the Court equally adopts its earlier decisions and holds that the Application being one that alleges the violation of human rights, is not statute barred. 22