whom he must enumerate, the court in its discretion awards the cost of $2,000 against the Respondent. 71. With regards to relief four, the Applicant claimed the sum of USD$2, 000,000.00 (Two Million United States Dollars) as compensation for the violation of his rights, and injury caused him, his family due to the absence of basic needs, such as food, decent standard of living, befitting a former Vice Chairman of State which contributed to the breaking up of his family. The Applicant attached a copy of the Bill of Divorcement Certificate from the Montserrado County Court issued in the City of Monrovia Liberia, dated 29th of April 2019 and marked as annexure 7 to substantiate the claim of divorce. The Respondent in contention urged that the claim should be denied as it is an attempt to mislead the Court on the grounds that it was the Applicant who filed the divorce proceeding and not the wife as claimed. 72. The Court after a careful perusal of the Certificate of Divorce, notes that the cause of divorce was not indicated therein and indeed the Applicant is the initiator of the divorce proceedings. To sustain a claim that the denial of his retirement and the attendant lack of funds to sustain his home led to the divorce, the Applicant must prove in the least that his wife indeed initiated the divorce proceedings against him due to his inability to provide for her sustenance. The court takes note of the alleged lack of sustenance due to non-payment of his pension, but the applicant must prove that the divorce was due to same. The divorce certificate is silent on the cause of the separation. In this regard, the Court is precluded from imputing the alleged lack of resources by the Applicant as the cause for the divorce. The claim for the sum of USD$2, 000,000.00 (Two Million United States Dollars) having being unsubstantiated, is hereby dismissed. 73. Following from all the above, the Court adjudicating in a public hearing, in the first and last resort, after hearing parties on matter of human rights violation, decides as follows: DECISIONS: DECLARES: 1. That the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 2. The applicant’s rights to life pursuant to article 4 of the ACHPR has not been violated. 32