matters involving the violation of human rights within its Member State. Therefore, the threshold that has been set by precedent is that the application need only contain an allegation of a violation for it to be deemed admissible. Further, in the case of KAREEM MEISSA WADE V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL (2019) ECW/CCJ/JUD/13/19, at pg. 259 Para. 95 (3), this Court held that: “…simply invoking human rights violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case.” The Court therefore holds that it has competence to hear and determine the application before it. ISSUE 2: Whether the Applicants are victims The Applicants are bringing this action for themselves as beneficiaries and on behalf of the deceased Mr. Abutu Adamu whom they claim is their father. They brought this action pursuant to Article 4 & 5 of the ACHPR on violation of the right to life; Article 3 and 8 of the UDHR; Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Applicants claim that they are the children of the deceased. That the death of the deceased had left their family vulnerable to severe mental torture and financial hardship as the deceased was the bread winner and had been killed unlawfully and/or unjustifiably. The issue here for determination is whether the Applicants are qualified as victims for them to bring this action. In accordance with their claims, firstly as children of the deceased and secondly as dependents of the deceased who had been the bread winner in the family, that the unlawful killing of the deceased has flung the Applicants to financial hardship including they being subjected to severe mental torture. In considering whether the Applicants are victims under the law, which is Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol, the Court will look to existing definitions from the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Survivors of Violations of International Human Rights Law and Humanitarian 6