33. The Respondent stated that the Applicants have not placed any sufficient evidence before the Court to substantiate their claims. They failed to submit a certified copy of the Bill or attached and adduced any evidence as to what stage the Bill is before the National Assembly, i.e. 1st reading, 2nd reading or committee stage and in which of the house or whether the Bill has died a natural death at public hearing like many other Bills. b. Pleas in law 34. The Respondent pleads Section 39 & 45 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). c. Reliefs sought by the Respondents 35. The Respondent urges the Court to dismiss the application in its entirety for lacking in merit and inadmissible. VII. JURISDICTION 36. The jurisdiction of the Court to examine cases of human rights violations that occur in the territory of any Member State as provided for under new Article 9 (4) of the Protocol on the Court as amended by the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 of 19 January 2005, is applicable once an Applicant alleges that actions or omissions of a Member State has occasioned violation of his/her human rights. 37. The instant case was filed by the Applicants contending that contrary to the relevant provisions of human rights instruments the Respondent is a signatory, the process of enacting into law the Bill on Hate Speech, currently pending 11