72. In light of this, the Court holds that the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection that the Application is statute barred cannot stand and is hereby dismissed. VIII. ADMISSIBILITY 73.The admissibility of applications in this Court is provided for in Article 10(d) (i) and (ii) of the Supplementary Protocol 2005: “Access to the Court is open to…d) individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: i) not be anonymous; nor ii) be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another International Court for adjudication.” 74.The Court holds that the Application is in compliance with Article 10 (d) (i) and (ii) of the Protocol, having found that it is neither anonymous nor made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another international court for adjudication. 75.It is imperative to state at this point that while Article 10(d) (i) and (ii) are statutory provisions enshrined in the Protocol for the determination of the admissibility of an Application therein, they are not exhaustive as certain facts of the Application may present a need for further examination of its admissibility outside the enshrined provision. One of such requirements relates to the authorization or mandate to act in a representative action lack of which renders the Application inadmissible. 76.Thus while the Application has been declared to be in compliance with the provision of Article 10(d) (i) and (ii) of the Supplementary Protocol, it is 23