B) As to the Status of the Applicant 27. Moussa Léo Kéita is a natural person in Private Law, an ordinary citizen of the State of Mali. 28. Having regard to Articles 9 and 10 [sic] cited above, the persons qualified to appear before the Court of Justice of ECOWAS - in other words, the persons who have the status to bring cases before the Court, are:       The Member States of ECOWAS The Institutions of ECOWAS The Staff of ECOWAS Individuals and corporate bodies in proceedings for the determination of an act or inaction of a Community official which violates the rights of the individuals or corporate bodies Individuals and corporate bodies victim of violation of Human Rights The national courts or the parties concerned, when the Court has to adjudicate on preliminary grounds upon the interpretation of the Treaty, Protocols or Rules 29. Can Moussa Léo Kéita justify his existence with respect to these persons and thereby enter into one of the above-mentioned groups? Yes, in the sense that Moussa Léo Kéita is a natural person in Private Law. 30. But does this status empower him to bring an action, such as this, before the present Court? Unlike other international courts of justice, such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS, does not possess, among others, the competence to revise decisions made by the domestic courts of Member States; it is neither a court of appeal nor a court of cassation (cour de cassation) vis-à-vis the national courts, and as such, the action of the Applicant cannot thrive. 31. All the same, doesn't the fact that a court, adjudicating in two contradictory decisions, awarding compensation for damages to a party, and thereafter reducing the said compensation, constitute a sufficient ground for requesting for a just and fair reparation? This is what the Lawyer for the Applicant, Me Mamadou, affirms when he calls to mind, in his Memorial in Defence, the issue of Human Rights. C) Competence of the Court as to the Pleas-in-law drawn from Human Rights Violation 32. The Protocol on the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS as amended, sets out in its Articles 9(4) and 4(d) [sic], the competence of the Court to entertain matters dealing with the violation of Human Rights (cf. supra). Article 19 of the 1991 Protocol on the Court of Justice of ECOWAS provides that: (...) The Court shall examine the dispute before it in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty and its Rules of Procedure (...). Article 4(g) of the Revised Treaty stipulates that: THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, in pursuit of the objectives stated in Article 3 of the Treaty, solemnly affirm and declare their adherence to the following principles: g) recognition, promotion, and protection of human and peoples' rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; 33. The Court consequently affirms its competence to adjudicate upon questions dealing with the violation of Human Rights. All the same, should one specify the particular human right which has been violated? The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights has enshrined rights, which the International Community today agrees to classify into civil and political rights on one hand or economic, social and cultural rights on the other hand, not forgetting other rights regarded as being of the third and fourth generations. Each of these rights have been so described as to bring